HATE CRIMES = thought policing? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

uwinceismile -> HATE CRIMES = thought policing? (7/3/2007 10:15:21 AM)

is it important to add 10 yrs to someones sentence because they say something during the act of a crime? or because the crime was perpertrated against another race?
i would prefer that they just did away with plea bargaining when the crime was that viscious. and enforce the laws that we have on the books. the the fullest extent of the law.
i mean honestly, does it matter if i am called a stupid effing white man, if the attacker is a different race? cant he be sentenced for the attack effieciently? what difference does it make if the person is a rascist, if he is killing another human being? cant we just procecute for murder?and not concern ourself with the idea that he did not like the other persons race? whats important is the crime committed,,and how we procecute it,,,not that the perp didnt like my skin color



seeksfemslave -> RE: HATE CRIMES = thought policing? (7/3/2007 10:18:41 AM)

Shows how confused PC thinkers are !



popeye1250 -> RE: HATE CRIMES = thought policing? (7/3/2007 10:20:21 AM)

That would make too much sense for the "PC" idiots.



Eruditus -> RE: HATE CRIMES = thought policing? (7/3/2007 10:27:50 AM)

I'm sorry, but a crime by nature is a hate crime. Isn't it? All violent crimes include an element of hatred. As far as racism is concerned...modern leftist thinkers have obscured the meaning of what a racist is. Think about it. PC groups really mean "culturist" instead of "racist." This is an important distinction. It is quite a different thing altogether to hate a culture than it is to hate a race. A racist, in my opinion, is someone who subscribes to the ideology of eugenics. Most "racists" today--aside from the organized, White Supremacist types--are not eugenics-believers. They are ordinary people who might not even know they are biased, and would be shocked if you informed them that they were.



SeeksOnlyOne -> RE: HATE CRIMES = thought policing? (7/3/2007 10:31:25 AM)

i never got the hate crimes thing either.....i mean who(other than some real wacko) is going to say "i love her/him so i must go kill them"........




uwinceismile -> RE: HATE CRIMES = thought policing? (7/3/2007 10:35:19 AM)

i dont know that i agree that all crime is based in hatred... a man breaks into my home, to steal my tv to sell for drug money doesnt hate me,,he loves his drugs. now that same man who is surprised by me in the act,,and we scuffle... and he says,,"im gonna kill ur white ass" as we do....should not be proceuted for a hate crime. he should be procecuted for breaking and entering. and of course, he should be treated at local hospital for his injuries first :)  lol



SubinMaine -> RE: HATE CRIMES = thought policing? (7/3/2007 11:23:16 AM)

i have a pretty strong opinion on this matter and it may bring me into a negative light, but i could really care less....

True Story:

On of my very best friends walked into a "House of Pizza" in Everett, MA back in the early 90's.  There was a gentleman in the establishment that got mouthy with him due to my friends display of an Notre Dame hat with the "fighting irishman" logo on it.  This gentleman was wearing one of those huge, double stuffed goose down jackets...Tripple Fat Goose, i think they were called.

Anyway, words were exchanged and when my friend left the pizza place, this gentleman followed him outside and proceeded to verbally assault him some more.  At one point during the exchange of obsceneties, this gentleman calmly told my friend that he was going to "shoot his white ass"...and reached into the inside pocket of his coat.

my friend did what ANYONE would have done, no matter their race and defended himself...the problem was, he got the better of this gentleman and, during the altercation, used a racial slur.  Let's further compound the problem by revealing the fact that while my friend took the threat and action to mean this gentleman had a gun in his pocket, it turned out to be all bluster because the gentleman DIDN'T have a gun, he had a 16oz bottle of pepsi in there.  So..apparently my friend should have been a mind reader and knew that he wasn't reaching for a gun, he was reaching for a drink?  i don't defend him for his use of the racial slur, no one should be put down because of their color, HOWEVER, the state of MA had passed a new "Hate Crime" bill a few weeks earlier.

my friend was the first person in the state to be charged under the new version of the Hate Crime laws soley based on the fact that he used that racial slur.  He was tried, convicted and sentenced to 12 years at MCI Concord for "Racially motivated Hate Crimes and Mayhem"...those are the exact words used by the courts.  The altercation was viewed as a "racial" hate crime because the two participants were of different races and racial slurs were exchanged.  The Mayhem was due to the fact that he prevailed in the altercation.

i was there for the entire thing, i saw what happened, i heard the exchanges between my friend and this other gentleman...they both used racial slurs...and the outcome was a joke.

Any crime is a Hate Crime, period.  Words used during the offending act are just that, words.  There is no physical damage.  i found that situation to be completely unfair and biased (racially) in the opposite direction.

i don't think additional time should be added to a sentence due to words being exchanged.  i don't think additional time should be added due to the participants of the crime (be it perpetrator or victim) being a different race.  A crime is a crime, call an apple an apple and stop trying to make it an orange.  Make the law, leave race OUT OF IT and stick to the way the law is written.  If that means making stiffer penalties for the crimes commited across the board, then that's what should be done.

Ok...i think my rant is over....*smile*





slaveluci -> RE: HATE CRIMES = thought policing? (7/3/2007 11:48:45 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: uwinceismile
what difference does it make if the person is a rascist, if he is killing another human being? cant we just procecute for murder?and not concern ourself with the idea that he did not like the other persons race?

No, because to the PC crowd, racism is worse than murder (as long as it's racism not directed at the white race, of course, since that type of racism doesn't exist[8|])............luci



instynctive -> RE: HATE CRIMES = thought policing? (7/3/2007 11:49:11 AM)

Again, I think a relatively good idea got taken to the extreme.

If a skinhead is convicted of beating up a minority businessman (or more likely, a bum), I think that's a pretty clear cut case of a racially-motivated hate crime... In the case of your friend and that altercation, obviously was not racially motivated... I agree, I could care less what pigment you come in.. threaten me and I'll go Jackie Chan on your ass.

The law was put into place to protect the "more innocent" victims of crimes committed against them only because of prejudice.. granted, someone getting caught in the crossfire during a robbery (like what may have happened in North Conway this weekend) is no less tragic for the innocent bystanders, but again, I think this is a case of lawmakers really trying, but only half-thinking through something.

I just talked in a complete circle.. heh.

That's why I find it safer just to call everyone a douchebag... plus it's easier to remember than all the little nicknames everyone has. :-)


Edited to clarify.. I am NOT calling a minority business a bum, bt was trying to convey that it would be more likely that the skinhead would go out "bum beating" for his white or red laces..



slaveluci -> RE: HATE CRIMES = thought policing? (7/3/2007 11:53:31 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SubinMaine
The altercation was viewed as a "racial" hate crime because the two participants were of different races and racial slurs were exchanged

And because the African-American fellow is the one who was the "victim" of the "hateful" words.  Somehow I doubt if the tables were turned and the only "racial slurs" flying were toward the Caucasian fellow, things would have been much different and it wouldn't have been considered a "hate crime."............luci



SubinMaine -> RE: HATE CRIMES = thought policing? (7/3/2007 12:17:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: slaveluci

quote:

ORIGINAL: SubinMaine
The altercation was viewed as a "racial" hate crime because the two participants were of different races and racial slurs were exchanged

And because the African-American fellow is the one who was the "victim" of the "hateful" words.  Somehow I doubt if the tables were turned and the only "racial slurs" flying were toward the Caucasian fellow, things would have been much different and it wouldn't have been considered a "hate crime."............luci


you are incorrect, luci...the other gentleman threw the first "racial slur" by telling my friend he was going to "shoot his white ass."

You see, BOTH parties used racial slurs (as i stated in my post), BOTH should have been held accountable if that's the way the law was written, however that's NOT how it was handled.

See why it irritates me? It's reverse discrimination...no one was justified in tossing the names around, but both were guilty of it...why was my friend singled out?

And i don't believe i stated whether one was African American or not....

*edited to add*

Growing up we used a sing-song phrase...remember? "Sticks and stones...." 

Also i feel my point is being missed after Luci's response....my point is that Race should be left out of the "Crime Time"...i will concede that exceptions should be made (example, White Supremacists, Neo-Nazi's, Nation of Islam and any other racially biased group that encourages the hate of one for the glory of the other)....dictating to a person what they can and can't say when it's a matter of opinion and not public safety (can't yell fire in a crowded theater = public safety issue) is, in my opinion, oppressing the right to freedom of speech.

mind you, the racial slur that my friend used was just as "mild" as the one used towards him, the only reason the authorities let the slur be admissable in court is due to the fact that it was voiced DURING the altercation and not before or after.



instynctive -> RE: HATE CRIMES = thought policing? (7/3/2007 12:22:15 PM)

Wow.. that was interesting....



popeye1250 -> RE: HATE CRIMES = thought policing? (7/3/2007 1:19:04 PM)

Subinmaine, that's only (one) of the reasons that Massachusetts is losing population.
And what about the, "I really don't like you very much crimes?"



uwinceismile -> RE: HATE CRIMES = thought policing? (7/3/2007 1:25:12 PM)

i dont see why any crime should be tainted by race?
i thought that justice was blind? ;)
if a white supremacy group member, or the nation of islam member break a law,,,then procecute for the law they have broken. its not against the law to hate .



SubinMaine -> RE: HATE CRIMES = thought policing? (7/3/2007 1:25:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

And what about the, "I really don't like you very much crimes?"


i'm sure those are coming, Popeye *smile*



MellowSir -> RE: HATE CRIMES = thought policing? (7/3/2007 1:42:26 PM)

It's far past time that people need to stop pulling the race card. Let a white guy try to do it and he'd be laughed at, hollering "racism" every time something doesn't go a person's way is a copout, I guess if Dahmer had had a jury of his "peers" they would have to have all been cannibals? Forget the special interest groups, and the "poor me" bleeding hearts , let equal be just that, equal. I hope Obama becomes the next president just to shut up groups like the NAACP etc etc...........



slaveluci -> RE: HATE CRIMES = thought policing? (7/3/2007 1:48:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SubinMaine
you are incorrect, luci...the other gentleman threw the first "racial slur" by telling my friend he was going to "shoot his white ass."

You see, BOTH parties used racial slurs (as i stated in my post), BOTH should have been held accountable if that's the way the law was written, however that's NOT how it was handled.

See why it irritates me? It's reverse discrimination...no one was justified in tossing the names around, but both were guilty of it...why was my friend singled out?

And i don't believe i stated whether one was African American or not....

*edited to add*

I'm not incorrect because I said exactly what you're saying.  I know both used racial slurs.  My point is that if your friend had not, I doubt the "hate crime" label would have been attached.  We'll never know as both said things but that's just my speculation.  And, no, you didn't say "African American."  I assumed that much because I've seen this time and time again.  Really doesn't matter.  The point I was making is that the Caucasian participant is usually the one responsible for all the "hate."  Calling him racial names just doesn't rate as hatred, I suppose.  It is reverse discrimination obviously..........luci 




Mercnbeth -> RE: HATE CRIMES = thought policing? (7/3/2007 1:50:31 PM)

The solution from the liberal side of the table to achieve equality is to make one group of people 'more equal' than others. It's pervasive in employment, housing, and banking. As if there wasn't enough resentment between the races, ages, and genders. At least it gives an excuse to those who don't get a job. It is most unfair to minorities. Imagine how the minority hire feels to be considered 'not as good' in the eyes of the government and requiring an AA/EEO program to get beyond his/her handicap of being born black. 

Liberals think the concept worked so well they thought it would be a great idea to apply the concept to crime.

quote:

HATE CRIMES = thought policing
Only if enforced by the 'Ministry of Love'



MstrssPassion -> RE: HATE CRIMES = thought policing? (7/3/2007 1:51:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: uwinceismile

is it important to add 10 yrs to someones sentence because they say something during the act of a crime? or because the crime was perpertrated against another race?
i would prefer that they just did away with plea bargaining when the crime was that viscious. and enforce the laws that we have on the books. the the fullest extent of the law.
i mean honestly, does it matter if i am called a stupid effing white man, if the attacker is a different race? cant he be sentenced for the attack effieciently? what difference does it make if the person is a rascist, if he is killing another human being? cant we just procecute for murder?and not concern ourself with the idea that he did not like the other persons race? whats important is the crime committed,,and how we procecute it,,,not that the perp didnt like my skin color


if you were one of those who had ever targeted because of race, gender, orientation, expression or religion we'd have something to talk about



uwinceismile -> RE: HATE CRIMES = thought policing? (7/3/2007 1:56:01 PM)

huh?
because im a white male, you cant discuss this with me?
i think i was just a victim of descrimination :(



Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2024
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
1.953125E-02