OK, lemme make sure I understand this. Some rude and uncouth slob calls the gentleman some names. Nobody sees him do it, but ipso-facto he bashed the gentleman's skull and we have an instant hate crime. Am I missing anything?The friend told police that he believed Anthos may have been attacked, but he did not witness it. He heard a noise, and when he turned around, the elderly man was on the ground.
Support The Forums:
The forums have been hosted for some time now out of my pocket. We are coming up on the annual domain renewal for ohioccwforums.org and I pay roughly $20/month to keep the forums online. I do this to maintain the long-standing history of discussions here indexed in Google, and so that people have a place to discuss this topic outside of modern social media censorship. If you enjoy the forums and you'd like to help offset the cost, please consider a venmo donation hereHate Crime
Moderators: Chuck, Mustang380gal, Coordinators, Moderators
-
NavyChief
- OFCC Coordinator
- Posts: 11628
- Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2005 10:22 am
- Location: Greene County
- Contact:
Sigh...
Total repeal of ALL firearms/weapons laws at the local, state and federal levels. Period. Wipe the slate clean.
-
2Fast4You
- Posts: 764
- Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 11:42 pm
- Location: Medina, OH
Yea your missing something here. Hate crime only works one way, and ALWAYS infavor of the so called "minority". Dosen't matter whatj the motives are, if your black, purple, mexican, gay, went to a IV leage college it's automatically a hate crime, and they're gonna tack on a few extra years for it. Welcome to america. /rantNavyChief wrote:Sigh...OK, lemme make sure I understand this. Some rude and uncouth slob calls the gentleman some names. Nobody sees him do it, but ipso-facto he bashed the gentleman's skull and we have an instant hate crime. Am I missing anything?The friend told police that he believed Anthos may have been attacked, but he did not witness it. He heard a noise, and when he turned around, the elderly man was on the ground.
Bill
We must carry arms because we value our lives and those of our loved ones, because we will not be dealt with by force or threat of force, and do not live at the pleasure and discretion of the lawless."
-
Phast
- Posts: 253
- Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2006 8:59 pm
- Location: Winchester, Ohio
The term “hate crime” drives me nuts; killing someone is killing someone period. No group of people should get special treatment good or bad because they are different. All this liberal crap about but oh he was gay or black etc… The people that support the term and thoughts are part of the problem with the US today. Everyone is discriminated against almost every day based on the way they look or some other factor. I could rant on about this forever but to be honest it doesn’t even deserve this much attention.
My world is the only one that counts
-
Durruti
- Posts: 126
- Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2006 7:08 am
First of all, Michigan doesn't have hate crime legislation. That's pointed out in the original article.
Second of all, the term "hate crime" isn't just a legal term, it's also useful in everyday life. If what was described is accurate, then I feel "hate crime" is an accurate description. That's not a call for special protection; it's an acknowledgment that the crime was committed based on prejudice. Calling it a hate crime makes the situation a bit more clear, which is what language is supposed to do.
Third, hate crime legislation exists because hate crimes aren't actually the same as other crimes. If a gay man is murdered because he is gay, then the act is also an assault on all other gay folk's liberties. I'm less likely to go out because I know there's a certain likelihood that I'll be attacked because of who I'm attracted to. Clearly the murder is the most important offense, but there is more to it in these cases.
Having said that, I'm not a fan of hate crime legislation precisely because it bears a striking resemblance to thought crime. However, as someone else alluded to, if you're going to oppose laws against hate crimes you must also oppose laws against terrorism for the same reason. It's all about motivation.
Making this issue even more complicated is the fact that we do draw legitimate (I feel) legal distinctions based on thought alone. Plan a killing and it's murder. Spontaneously kill someone and it's manslaughter. The victim's dead either way, it's all based on thought, and yet I still like the distinction.
Finally, the idea that gay folks are somehow privileged by the government is absurd. If I get pulled over and the cop asks where I'm headed, I'd feel much more comfortable saying "my girlfriend's" than "my boyfriend's". There's a very good reason for that.
Second of all, the term "hate crime" isn't just a legal term, it's also useful in everyday life. If what was described is accurate, then I feel "hate crime" is an accurate description. That's not a call for special protection; it's an acknowledgment that the crime was committed based on prejudice. Calling it a hate crime makes the situation a bit more clear, which is what language is supposed to do.
Third, hate crime legislation exists because hate crimes aren't actually the same as other crimes. If a gay man is murdered because he is gay, then the act is also an assault on all other gay folk's liberties. I'm less likely to go out because I know there's a certain likelihood that I'll be attacked because of who I'm attracted to. Clearly the murder is the most important offense, but there is more to it in these cases.
Having said that, I'm not a fan of hate crime legislation precisely because it bears a striking resemblance to thought crime. However, as someone else alluded to, if you're going to oppose laws against hate crimes you must also oppose laws against terrorism for the same reason. It's all about motivation.
Making this issue even more complicated is the fact that we do draw legitimate (I feel) legal distinctions based on thought alone. Plan a killing and it's murder. Spontaneously kill someone and it's manslaughter. The victim's dead either way, it's all based on thought, and yet I still like the distinction.
Finally, the idea that gay folks are somehow privileged by the government is absurd. If I get pulled over and the cop asks where I'm headed, I'd feel much more comfortable saying "my girlfriend's" than "my boyfriend's". There's a very good reason for that.