Nope. Although I'd phrase it like this: If someone, motivated by anti-gay animus, went out looking for a gay man to kidnap, torture and murder, he should be punished more severely than someone who just went out looking for any person to kidnap, torture and murder.
I have to disagree. Murder and torture are bad...it isn't worse because it happens to a homosexual or for racial reasons.
The reason is nothing more than motive...
If your church was vandalized with hateful epithets, would you be more upset than if a warehouse in the same neighborhood was tagged?
Nope, wouldn't make a difference to me....both are buildings that were vandalized, and that is the crime that should be punished.
Look, you can come up with all kinds of ridiculous thought experiments, but what you can't deny is that there is a documented history of violence specifically targeting gay people, and black people, and Japanese people, and women, and Arabs, and Muslims, and...
There's a history of violence against people from all sorts of walks of life...even white adult straight males.
I don't believe any 'special' groups are out there deserving of special laws just for them.
We are all supposed to be equal, and treated equal under the rule of law...
I don't give a fuck who someone is..if they are killed or worse....it is bad and that is the crime that should be prosecuted.
Just because you are a member of some minority...you're death is not special, it is as bad as another Americans, if not...then we are NOT equal under the law and I think that breaks one of the basic tenets of being a US citizen.
The message sent by a crime like this is "If you dare to be gay here, we just might kill you." It's terrorism, in any reasonable sense of the word. The crime targets not just the person who is violently attacked, but anyone who shares that characteristic with the victim....
No, if a straight guy was in place of the gay guy, he wouldn't have been tortured or dead, because the attackers WENT LOOKING FOR A GAY GUY TO TORTURE AND KILL. That's the whole fucking point.
Well, so, if a different criminal, was looking for anyone of any sexual preference, or race....oh hell, or either sex...JUST to torture and murder them, then, that perp should not be charged or punished as severely as the ones that did it to that poor homosexual boy?
I'm still asking......what makes it worse for the gay guy than the *random* person being tortured abd murdered?
What if the people that did it to the gay guy did it because he was gay BUT, didn't go out there saying it that there is a group out there targeting gays (just isolated to these 2 or so perps in this case), nor were they trying to intimidate anyone else...then it was a hate crime?
It isn't a crime to hate....freedom of thought or speech.
Or, are you trying to say that by the mere action they took, killing a gay guy...that other gay guys are by necessity (even with no other public mention or threat against the region's gay community, or incitement for others to mimic the action), that it is intimidating and therefore a hate crime?
Again, I see this as making crimes against minorities worse than those same crimes committed against non-minorities.
Oh, sure, I've seen those commercials and I know it exists, but the OP I was referring to was saying these types of snooping devices was mandated for young drivers, and I was saying I'd never heard they were required for insurance coverage, even for young people.
Second, hate crime laws are there because sometimes the intent of the murder is to intimidate or oppress a group. Think about the KKK's tactics last century(s).
So, you're saying...if someone kills someone BECAUSE of their race, or sexual orientation, but does NOT by action or intention, show it was done to intimidate said group, then it is not a hate crime?
I have to disagree. Punishment should be only for the crime. A person tortured, and/or killed....will result just as brutallly tortured and/or dead no matter why that person was targeted.
If a straight guy was in place of the gay guy you mentioned in your example...he would be just as tortured and then dead as the gay guy, yet his tormentors or attackers wouldn't be punished as much.....that lessens the value of his life over that of the gay guy...
Since we know that Zimmerman started the confrontation, why do we not assume that Martin was acting in his own self defense?
We do not know at this time...who started the physical confrontation. That has not been established.
I did hear the 911 say that zimmerman shouldn't leave the car, etc....but, that's not binding.
I haven't found the facts yet..about what zimmerman's 'duties' were...was he part of an organized neighborhood watch, or just a lone wolf doing it?
And, as of now, we don't know exactly what the full confrontation was. He had full right to try to talk to the kid and find out what he was doing there (especially if he was part of an organized neighborhood watch group, that would be one thing they'd naturally do, try to find out about strange people in their area, a gated community).
The kid, would have just as much right to ignore zimmerman and walk away. But we don't know the facts yet.
If the kid did physically jump zimmerman and attack him, according to the laws of FL, it does appear zimmerman could use deadly force in self defense.
But as of right now...we don't know all the facts, but the ones I stated I've heard above, if true...would lend credence to zimmerman's self defense case, and he would therefore not be subject to arrest.
I'm trying to figure out, the best scenario where after the confrontation, that zimmerman had a broken nose and trauma to the back of his head, and apparently the kid just had a gunshot wound, no other injuries to him, so far, have been stated.
It does make me wonder, if as some state, zimmerman just started chasing him, pulled his gun and shot him...how zimmerman acquired his injuries....you don't usually get those types of injuries just running and shooting, they're usually part of a fight or an attack on the person with the injuries.
So, just saying....this is far from an open and shut case.
It is illegal to use speech that incites racial hatred, a form of speech that is not even protected in the US.
Err...you absolutely CAN use speech to incite racial hatred....inciting violence against a race, is more of a grey area, and generally only if your speech actually causes physical action based on race or really....anything else that you incite criminal action.
But you are free all day in the US, from govt action against you...to expouse and try to convince all the people you want to, that they should hate all homosexual retarded crippled indian whale watchers...and try to get people to come to your way of thinking. No problem at all with govt. arresting you for that.
Heck, if that were the case, well, all those nifty groups like the skin heads, neo-nazis....and even the KKK would all be rounded up and put in jail just for their meetings alone.
Believe it or not, it is perfectly legal to be a neo-nazi or KKK member in the US and believe and try to convert others to your way of thinking...as long as you aren't caught trying to or succeeding in inciting violent acts against someone.
So you're saying only rich people should have access to public spaces- and free speech?
How exactly is that free speech? It should be for all- not just the rich.
Actually, if I recall...they were camping out, basically 'squatting' in a PRIVATELY owned park...and for weeks, they let them do it, but after awhile, these occupy folks were infringing on the owner of the park, AND the local businesses rights....remember the old "your rights end where my nose begins" saying?
Private insurance firms requiring them for young drivers in return for a reduced rate of insurance? Sure, but that's the case in the US, Europe, etc as well.
Seriously?
Which insurance company in the US requires people to put black box trackers in cars...even young drivers?
I don't get it...why should there be hate crimes at all?
I mean, if you kill someone...they are dead. Does it matter really the reason you did it? I think not...the person is no more dead for being black/white/hispanic/chinese/gay that they would be if someone just got mad at them for banging their significant other while the killer was at work.
The crime is murder....not the thought behind it, or at least it shouldn't be. Motive? Sure, but that explains the murder it shouldn't give a certain race or sexual orientation 'special' status which makes it a worse crime and extended punishment.
Is it worse for a guy to kill a black guy because he's black....than for him to kill a white guy for any other reason in the world? If you think so....explain why please....both guys are equally as dead.
It gets much more complicated when those opinions are accompanied by calls for violence. If I were to carry a sign saying "kill a black person today", I should expect to find myself explaining my thought process to a judge.
I'm curious, and wonder if a lawyer on here might step in, but is merely carrying a sign saying "kill a black person today" enough to establish you have incited any action at all....even in absences of any actions against black people?
I'm just curious....what the line is for actual incitement. I'd think speech like your example, until is actually incited violence, etc...would still be protected speech in the US.
It means that there is nothing wrong with the law, but with the people who are enforcing it.
Well, to be fair...not all of the facts have come out yet.
I'm seeing reports that Zimmerman, when interviewed by police had a broken nose, and trauma to the back of the head, which does lend credence to his story that the kid attacked him physically, and with the whack on the head, possibly he was jumped from behind by the kid?
If so, then Zimmerman's self defense stance, may stand up, and not be an arrestable offense?
I've also hear there may be a witness that saw the two scuffling on the ground prior to the shot...
So, I think it might be fair to wait and see what the fact the local police as well as the new 'special prosecutor' that was appointed by the state, and of course the Feds looking for civil rights charges come up with....but, alas, we have Al Sharpton down there riling up the crowd, not to mention the New Black Panthers are actively asking for a bounty on Zimmerman's head....
Hmm...how come the BP's aren't in trouble for that, they have their statements captured on TV....?
I can see blocking it on outgoing ports in the firewall so that you can't tunnel to the outside world
Yeah, but usually hard for companies to block ALL ports, particularly ones that are popular like, say port 80 or 443...
It is simple to ssh tunnel through those to try to look like legitimate traffic...just port forward through those...to a home server running squid looking for traffic on those ports...and voila...you're bypassing proxies and firewall rules...
That and well...it is kind of hard to take commands, and respect a manager that you can also picture as having her down on her knees giving you a blowjob and staring up with you with your cock stuffed in her mouth.
Hmm....struck a chord with some of the ladies on slashdot, eh?
That and well...it is kind of hard to take commands, and respect a manager that you can also picture as having her down on her knees giving you a blowjob and staring up with you with your cock stuffed in her mouth.
Slashdot Mirror
When dead....a corpse is a corpse...no difference.
Otherwise we are not all equal under the rule of law, and one person's death is more important than another persons..due to what they were in life?
That sounds kinda fucked up to me...
What does it matter what sex, race or sexual preference?
Are we all not supposed to be equal under the rule of law?
Sure....gotcha.
I guess the fact that they're getting fucked against their will has nothing to do with it....riiiiiight....
I have to disagree. Murder and torture are bad...it isn't worse because it happens to a homosexual or for racial reasons.
The reason is nothing more than motive...
Nope, wouldn't make a difference to me....both are buildings that were vandalized, and that is the crime that should be punished.
There's a history of violence against people from all sorts of walks of life...even white adult straight males.
I don't believe any 'special' groups are out there deserving of special laws just for them.
We are all supposed to be equal, and treated equal under the rule of law...
I don't give a fuck who someone is..if they are killed or worse....it is bad and that is the crime that should be prosecuted.
Just because you are a member of some minority...you're death is not special, it is as bad as another Americans, if not...then we are NOT equal under the law and I think that breaks one of the basic tenets of being a US citizen.
Well, so, if a different criminal, was looking for anyone of any sexual preference, or race....oh hell, or either sex...JUST to torture and murder them, then, that perp should not be charged or punished as severely as the ones that did it to that poor homosexual boy?
I'm still asking......what makes it worse for the gay guy than the *random* person being tortured abd murdered?
What if the people that did it to the gay guy did it because he was gay BUT, didn't go out there saying it that there is a group out there targeting gays (just isolated to these 2 or so perps in this case), nor were they trying to intimidate anyone else...then it was a hate crime?
It isn't a crime to hate....freedom of thought or speech.
Or, are you trying to say that by the mere action they took, killing a gay guy...that other gay guys are by necessity (even with no other public mention or threat against the region's gay community, or incitement for others to mimic the action), that it is intimidating and therefore a hate crime?
Again, I see this as making crimes against minorities worse than those same crimes committed against non-minorities.
Oh, sure, I've seen those commercials and I know it exists, but the OP I was referring to was saying these types of snooping devices was mandated for young drivers, and I was saying I'd never heard they were required for insurance coverage, even for young people.
So, you're saying...if someone kills someone BECAUSE of their race, or sexual orientation, but does NOT by action or intention, show it was done to intimidate said group, then it is not a hate crime?
So, if the behavior being called for never manifests itself...then there is no incitement.
In the case of New Orleans, it was a small group, and they were in a public park.
However, the rules of the park, put into place LONG before the Occupy movement, prohibited camping out there overnight...etc.
The NOLA govt, actually let them get away with it for weeks, but at some point, they had to enforce the laws, and had them removed.
I have to imagine this is likely the case in many if not most cities that threw out the Occupiers from their camps.
If a straight guy was in place of the gay guy you mentioned in your example...he would be just as tortured and then dead as the gay guy, yet his tormentors or attackers wouldn't be punished as much.....that lessens the value of his life over that of the gay guy...
I don't think that's right....
We do not know at this time...who started the physical confrontation. That has not been established.
I did hear the 911 say that zimmerman shouldn't leave the car, etc....but, that's not binding.
I haven't found the facts yet..about what zimmerman's 'duties' were...was he part of an organized neighborhood watch, or just a lone wolf doing it?
And, as of now, we don't know exactly what the full confrontation was. He had full right to try to talk to the kid and find out what he was doing there (especially if he was part of an organized neighborhood watch group, that would be one thing they'd naturally do, try to find out about strange people in their area, a gated community).
The kid, would have just as much right to ignore zimmerman and walk away. But we don't know the facts yet.
If the kid did physically jump zimmerman and attack him, according to the laws of FL, it does appear zimmerman could use deadly force in self defense.
But as of right now...we don't know all the facts, but the ones I stated I've heard above, if true...would lend credence to zimmerman's self defense case, and he would therefore not be subject to arrest.
I'm trying to figure out, the best scenario where after the confrontation, that zimmerman had a broken nose and trauma to the back of his head, and apparently the kid just had a gunshot wound, no other injuries to him, so far, have been stated.
It does make me wonder, if as some state, zimmerman just started chasing him, pulled his gun and shot him...how zimmerman acquired his injuries....you don't usually get those types of injuries just running and shooting, they're usually part of a fight or an attack on the person with the injuries.
So, just saying....this is far from an open and shut case.
Err...you absolutely CAN use speech to incite racial hatred....inciting violence against a race, is more of a grey area, and generally only if your speech actually causes physical action based on race or really....anything else that you incite criminal action.
But you are free all day in the US, from govt action against you...to expouse and try to convince all the people you want to, that they should hate all homosexual retarded crippled indian whale watchers...and try to get people to come to your way of thinking. No problem at all with govt. arresting you for that.
Heck, if that were the case, well, all those nifty groups like the skin heads, neo-nazis....and even the KKK would all be rounded up and put in jail just for their meetings alone.
Believe it or not, it is perfectly legal to be a neo-nazi or KKK member in the US and believe and try to convert others to your way of thinking...as long as you aren't caught trying to or succeeding in inciting violent acts against someone.
Actually, if I recall...they were camping out, basically 'squatting' in a PRIVATELY owned park...and for weeks, they let them do it, but after awhile, these occupy folks were infringing on the owner of the park, AND the local businesses rights....remember the old "your rights end where my nose begins" saying?
Seriously?
Which insurance company in the US requires people to put black box trackers in cars...even young drivers?
That's new to me...never heard that one before.
I mean, if you kill someone...they are dead. Does it matter really the reason you did it? I think not...the person is no more dead for being black/white/hispanic/chinese/gay that they would be if someone just got mad at them for banging their significant other while the killer was at work.
The crime is murder....not the thought behind it, or at least it shouldn't be. Motive? Sure, but that explains the murder it shouldn't give a certain race or sexual orientation 'special' status which makes it a worse crime and extended punishment.
Is it worse for a guy to kill a black guy because he's black....than for him to kill a white guy for any other reason in the world? If you think so....explain why please....both guys are equally as dead.
I'm curious, and wonder if a lawyer on here might step in, but is merely carrying a sign saying "kill a black person today" enough to establish you have incited any action at all....even in absences of any actions against black people?
I'm just curious....what the line is for actual incitement. I'd think speech like your example, until is actually incited violence, etc...would still be protected speech in the US.
Well, to be fair...not all of the facts have come out yet.
I'm seeing reports that Zimmerman, when interviewed by police had a broken nose, and trauma to the back of the head, which does lend credence to his story that the kid attacked him physically, and with the whack on the head, possibly he was jumped from behind by the kid?
If so, then Zimmerman's self defense stance, may stand up, and not be an arrestable offense?
I've also hear there may be a witness that saw the two scuffling on the ground prior to the shot...
So, I think it might be fair to wait and see what the fact the local police as well as the new 'special prosecutor' that was appointed by the state, and of course the Feds looking for civil rights charges come up with....but, alas, we have Al Sharpton down there riling up the crowd, not to mention the New Black Panthers are actively asking for a bounty on Zimmerman's head....
Hmm...how come the BP's aren't in trouble for that, they have their statements captured on TV....?
Yeah, but usually hard for companies to block ALL ports, particularly ones that are popular like, say port 80 or 443...
It is simple to ssh tunnel through those to try to look like legitimate traffic...just port forward through those...to a home server running squid looking for traffic on those ports...and voila...you're bypassing proxies and firewall rules...
Yep..that's why I got my Samsung 59" Plasma last year....what a SWEET tv image that thing puts out!!!
Hmm...that doesn't sound that real world to me??
CRT? 25 year old TV? I don't know of anyone that would keep a tv that long...especially as the main tv in the living room.
Hmm....struck a chord with some of the ladies on slashdot, eh?
That and well...it is kind of hard to take commands, and respect a manager that you can also picture as having her down on her knees giving you a blowjob and staring up with you with your cock stuffed in her mouth.
| Could you expand on this?
What 'social divisions' are you talking about here? Stupid vs Intelligent...?
So, there's not state courts?
I don't know which way you're going on this...care to expand on your thoughts a bit?