That's change I can believe in. It is great to have a President who tries to protect all citizens.

Oh no! Panic! This may be your last chance to legally call someone a faggot on the Retort.

If someone is murdered (other than accidental)--it is the result of hate.

It is not protecting ALL citizens.

This just creates special classes of victims.

It's bs.

Murphy, you are a GREAT parrot. Ever thought of getting feathers glued to that enormous ass of yours?

Murphy

I'm sure you would change your opinion if you had your ass beat for being a Christian. Since YOU believe in the biblical God, it should be obvious to you that being targeted for what you are as God created you should be a crime. Maybe you aren't really a Christian any more than the KKK people who carries the cross and wave the flag are Christians and patriots. Freedom is --or should be--the hallmark that every American fights for---the freedom to live your life in peace should be something YOU fight for. Spreading hate is something you should be against. What kind of church do you go to where an atheist has more compassion for his fellow human beings than YOU do?

It's the ultimate left wing conspiracy to make a major crime out of what used to be sport.

Everybody gets protection from hate crimes except us middle-aged, blue-eyed, native-born, heterosexual U.S. Aryan males who are currently the most despised demographical group in the states

Everybody gets protection from hate crimes except us middle-aged, blue-eyed, native-born, heterosexual U.S. Aryan males who are currently the most despised demographical group in the states

That describes me to a "T", but with me you can also add "tall and good looking".

Don't let Gimme fool you, Goatman. He's closer to OLD than middle aged.

Unless he thinks he's gonna live to be 114.

lol

And on that note...nite everyone!!

Ciao

This is good news. Obama is making progress for this country.

That describes me to a "T", but with me you can also add "tall and good looking".

#9 | Posted by goatman

Well I'll give you tall

Don't let Gimme fool you, Goatman. He's closer to OLD than middle aged.

#10 | Posted by Lisa

Whew! You don't know how much of a relief it is to hear that I was afraid she was the mysterious matronly blonde I've only caught glimpses of who's been stalking me lately

If it's a federal crime, does that mean that people sentenced get to go to Club Fed, instead of state prisons?

Law of Unintended Consequences strikes again.

#9, Goatman...delusions of adaquacy.

Crap! They finally found a way to protect republicans.

This is good news. Obama is making progress for this country.

#11 | Posted by jackass at 2009-10-22 09:58 PM | Reply | Flag: MOST LIKELY FIRST ONE ARRESETED

ARRESTED.

The Senate passed groundbreaking legislation Thursday that would make it a federal crime to assault an individual because of his or her sexual orientation or gender identity.

And here I thought assaulting someone was crime enough. Some people are more equal than others.

#18 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2009-10-23 01:10 AM | Reply | Flag:

Usually you have to piss someone off to be assaulted. Just being gay is no reason to be assaulted. As to some people being more equal than others--you are correct--assault a police officer and see if you get special charges---try any federal employee. Try making a threat towards the President. I guess you think it is OK to attack blacks simply because they are black, or asians simply because they are asian, or mexicans simply because they are mexican.

Pretty soon, sticking a knife in the belly of a white male Christian will not be a hate crime.

So if I stick a Bowie knife up the anus of a white male Christian....it is not hate?
What if I call him a "nigger" before doing it?

"So if I stick a Bowie knife up the anus of a white male Christian....it is not hate?"

Sure. It's a 'hate crime' if he's Ted Haggart

Usually you have to piss someone off to be assaulted. Just being gay is no reason to be assaulted. As to some people being more equal than others--you are correct--assault a police officer and see if you get special charges---try any federal employee. Try making a threat towards the President. I guess you think it is OK to attack blacks simply because they are black, or asians simply because they are asian, or mexicans simply because they are mexican.

#19 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2009-10-23 01:17 AM

lol

So, if someone murders my wife because she cut in front of them at the check out line, why should that attacker be given a lighter sentence that someone who murdered a gay?

This may be your last chance to legally call someone a faggot on the Retort.

#2 | Posted by ZombieHunter at 2009-10-22 08:27 PM | Reply

It's literally been years since you could get away with that on the retort.
Cunt ok, fag, not.
Although early this week there were quite a few instances where it was allowed.

So if you beat the crap out of a black gay in drag, you are punished more severly than if you beat the crap out of your white accountant?

So, if someone murders my wife because she cut in front of them at the check out line, why should that attacker be given a lighter sentence that someone who murdered a gay?

#24 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2009-10-23 09:40 AM | Reply | Flag

Your wife did something to make someone angry---what did the gay person do?

Hate crimes are stupid. Nobody assaults somebody because they love them.

So if you beat the crap out of a black gay in drag, you are punished more severly than if you beat the crap out of your white accountant?

#26 | Posted by slicksterWilly at 2009-10-23 09:47 AM | Reply | Flag:

Why did you beat the crap out of the black guy in drag? Why did you beat your white accountant?

Your wife did something to make someone angry---what did the gay person do?

#27 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2009-10-23 09:47 AM | Reply

Made somebody angry.

Hate crime law is bullshit IMHO. It is not an evenly applied law and therefore is not a valid law.

Nobody assaults somebody because they love them.

#28 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2009-10-23 09:49 AM | Reply | Flag

People are usually assaulted because they did something to anger the person who did the assaulting. Everyone should be able to walk down the street, minding their own bisiness, without fear of being assaulted for just existing.

Made somebody angry.

#30 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2009-10-23 09:49 AM | Reply | Flag

How did they make someone angry?

I love it.

bOoB makes the case that cutting in front of someone at the super market justifies murder enough to lessen the charges.

Ok Buffalo Tits,

Someone murders my wife because she's wearing a football jersey for a rival team. Why should that attacker be given a lighter sentence that someone who murdered a gay?

(lemme guess, she did something to make him angry)

I love it.

bOoB makes the case that cutting in front of someone at the super market justifies murder enough to lessen the charges.

#34 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2009-10-23 09:53 AM | Reply | Flag:

People are killed for various reason. Cutting in front of someone in a checkout line is more valid than killing for no reason at all except forwhat the person is as a human being. That you can't grasp the concept of a senseless killing being punished more than a crime with a motive makes you the bOob--not me.

Why did you beat the crap out of the black guy in drag? Why did you beat your white accountant?

Hypothetically, let just say in a drunken stuper I beat the crap out of Buffalo_Bob because of the stupidity he demonstates on this blog. If during the affore mentioned ass kicking, if Buffalo_Bob is a gay bald headed black man in drag with red lipstick, is my punishment more severe than if he is a white, blue eyed man in a sport shirt and slacks?

How did they make someone angry?

#33 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2009-10-23 09:51 AM | Reply

That part doesn't matter. Assaults come from anger. One anger isn't different than another anger.

Being angry at somebody because they are gay or because they have red hair or because they dress different or because they took too long crossing a street is all the same.

Treat them all the same.

Now fuck off. Everyone knows you're crazy and stupid, and that even the most basic concepts escape you.

The point BBob is trying to make isn't that people are given more prison time because the person they attack happens to be gay. Rather, people are given more prison time because the reason for the attack is that the person is gay. Get the difference?

The point BBob is trying to make isn't that people are given more prison time because the person they attack happens to be gay. Rather, people are given more prison time because the reason for the attack is that the person is gay. Get the difference?

#39 | Posted by moder8 at 2009-10-23 09:57 AM

Cutting in front of someone in a checkout line is more valid than killing for no reason at all

tell that to the judge retard when you are getting sentenced.

both equate to "no reason at all".

Rather, people are given more prison time because the reason for the attack is that the person is gay. Get the difference?

#39 | Posted by moder8 at 2009-10-23 09:57 AM | Reply |

If the reason I attacked you was because you were taking to long to cross the street, and as I was beating you I yelled "Cross faster next time mother fucker!", why is that "hate" any different?

Are red-heads/gingers protected classes? What if the hair was dyed, does that matter?
How about preppies, freaks, and jocks? They're often targeted by other groups for simply being who they are. Same with nerds. Is there a protected class of nerds?

#39 | Posted by moder8

And both ways of looking at it place being gay or black at a higher value than being alive since the person beating the gay person will get a longer sentence. Get the difference?

If the reason I attacked you was because you were taking to long to cross the street, and as I was beating you I yelled "Cross faster next time mother fucker!", why is that "hate" any different?

That is a hate crime against Fathers.

bOoB's quite the Nazi, lol! Killing for cutting in line at the super market has some level of validity in his world.

It's about time this happened.

Yeah, you may not agree with Hate Crime legislation in general, but its there and Sexual Orientation SHOULD be included in the protected groups.

[sarcasm]

Onward gays, let's shake the foundation more and continue to cause them to divorce. Go Rainbow Recruiters!

[/scarcasm]

The point of the legislation is to punish people who commit crimes for discriminatory reasons. You guys may dislike it, but that is what the law says. Our experience as a nation has taught us that crimes committed against victim solely based on considerations such as race, religion, gender, sex orientation are different in nature than crimes committed against a victim for cutting you off on the freeway. That's the law, and prosecutors/lawmakers feel the law is appropriate. (For the record, the vast majority of prosecutors are rightwing. Law and order types tend to gravitate towards the job. If you don't like the way they apply the law, vote these rightwingers out of office.)

The point of the legislation is to punish people who commit crimes for discriminatory reasons.

No, it is appeasment to special interest groups. It does not cover all crimes commited for discriminatory purposes as most times a white victim is not protected by the same laws.

(For the record, the vast majority of prosecutors are rightwing. Law and order types tend to gravitate towards the job. If you don't like the way they apply the law, vote these rightwingers out of office.)

#47 | Posted by moder8

What the do you know about law? This isn't a spitting on the sidewalk issue.

hate crimes are ridiculous.
if you kill someone, you pay the price.

end of story.

and the real IRONY of this and so many other issues
for the longest time it was LIBERALS who were warning us of "1984" coming true.

BTW, why was this legislation part of a defense bill?

Hate crime laws remove the blindfold and scales from lady liberty as she now is using appearance to decide justice and the scales are no longer balanced.

BTW, why was this legislation part of a defense bill?

#51 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE

I'm not sure why, but I spit coffee all over my desk after reading your post.
Thanks.

Rarely have I seen such ignorance on the DR insofar as how an issue actually plays itself out on a daily basis in the courtroom. Based on experience, I can almost guarantee that 90% of you who are complaining about these "hate" laws in the abstract would be in support of them if you were on a jury listening to the facts of some of the crimes that are committed.

And for what it is worth, don't assume that I like these laws. I have to defend against them regularly.

abstract would be in support of them if you were on a jury listening to the facts of some of the crimes that are committed.

Emotional arguments have no place in legal debates, thus the blindfold and scales. Hatecrime laws remove the blindfold and tip the scales.

Serious question, are Senior Citizens protected with hate crimes? Are there more serious repurcussions for brutally mugging a Senior because they are an easy target?
After all, they can't help being old anymore than a red-head can help having red hair or a gay person can help be gay.

Considering that the Homeless are regular targets of drunken teenagers, we need to include bums in Hate Crime Laws.

I also remember very clearly, in college, getting jumped outside a club simply because I had long hair. They repeatedly told me, as they stomped me, that they hated "communist hippie fucks." That sounds like a hate crime to me as well, so Hippies must be protected.

Based on experience, I can almost guarantee that 90% of you who are complaining about these "hate" laws in the abstract would be in support of them if you were on a jury listening to the facts of some of the crimes that are committed.

#54 | Posted by moder8 at 2009-10-23 10:28 AM | Reply |

How so? The facts of the case would reveal somebody was assaulted/murdered, etc. Guilty is guilty. The reason for the crime doesn't make them anymore guilty.

#55
I disagree. The blindfold is to provide even handed justice no matter who you are. The blindfold is not to prevent the court from seeing the victim or from taking the motives for the crime into consideration.

The blindfold is not to prevent the court from seeing the victim or from taking the motives for the crime into consideration.

I always saw the blindfold as it not mattering who you were, what color, you social status, or anything else; all were equal before Lady Justice.

What about kids getting beat up for going to a rival high school, or a Giants fan getting beat up at a Philly game?
All based on senseless hate, yet not given special victim status.

#38 worked!

Based on experience, I can almost guarantee that 90% of you who are complaining about these "hate" laws in the abstract would be in support of them if you were on a jury listening to the facts of some of the crimes that are committed.

fair enough, then based on your experience, give us a good example...

What about kids getting beat up for going to a rival high school, or a Giants fan getting beat up at a Philly game?
All based on senseless hate, yet not given special victim status.

#62 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2009-10-23 10:36 AM

That sounds like a hate crime to me as well, so Hippies must be protected.

if they are gay or a minority.

white hetro male??

sorry. no hate.

LOL

I'm not sure why, but I spit coffee all over my desk after reading your post.
Thanks.

#53 | Posted by wisgod at 2009-10-23 10:26 AM

if they are gay or a minority.

white hetro male??

I live in Miami: white hetero males are the minority and I am still not protected. The odds of me being jumped for being a "gringo" far outweighs the odds of me being jumped for any other reason here.

I live in Miami: white hetero males are the minority and I am still not protected. The odds of me being jumped for being a "gringo" far outweighs the odds of me being jumped for any other reason here.

#68 | Posted by kanrei at 2009-10-23 10:46 AM

Not even for being a Jew?

They would have to know I was Jewish and made some comment for it to qualify. The greater chance is that they will know I am a "Gringo" long before they can tell I am a "Jew."

"Based on experience, I can almost guarantee that 90% of you who are complaining about these "hate" laws in the abstract would be in support of them if you were on a jury listening to the facts of some of the crimes that are committed..."

I have had the unfortunate experience of being on a jury where this was the third try at some lawsuit. Collectively we couldn't get past page one of the jury instructions. Obviously we ended up a hung jury. Now they want to include "hate" as though it deserves its own category when a crime is committed? Why not let the DA's argue that aspect if applicable? Then convince the jury to give the maximum sentence. Would any skinhead with Swastikas on his arms and head, ever have a fair trial if being charged with a hate crime? Regarless of guilt or innocence?

I have to defend against them regularly.

#54 | Posted by moder8

I'll bet it's a bitch getting a heterosexual off a jay walking charge compared to a homo.

Under the hate crime laws, if any of you were attacked BECAUSE you are "white" or "gringo" or "jewish" then that would qualify as a hate crime. These laws are not written to be applied just to blacks or gays. If you don't like how your local DAs have chosen to apply them, take that up with them.

Personal: Two months ago I represented a motorcycle dude who got drunk and beat up a gay man at a bar. He allegedly was calling the victim a "fag" as he was kicking him with heavy boots while the victim curled up in a ball on the floor to try and cover himself. Other than being drunk, and the victim being gay, there was no clear reason for the attack.

Is there a special victim status for those that are victims to crimes of opportunity?

Hate crime laws remove the blindfold and scales from lady liberty as she now is using appearance to decide justice and the scales are no longer balanced.

#52 | Posted by kanrei at 2009-10-23 10:22 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

UH,...excuse me sir..
but ...uh....er...wasnt this the same thing said about sonia sontamayor??

so NOW you are using this line here?????

hee hee hee

"Other than being drunk, and the victim being gay, there was no clear reason for the attack."

What difference does it make whether or not the guy beat someone up because he didn't like gays, or he looked like someone he didn't like. Either way the guy was beat up. Make the punishment harsher for all assaults instead of guessing, why someone decided to committ said crime.

#6 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

BB--

Throwing out the Christian card again--eh?

It's all hate with assault and murder.

Whether it's a spouse, a neighbor or a stranger.

If someone murders someone for some reason--it's the job of the DA to bring it to the jury and explain what the reasons for the crime were.

Sometimes there is no good reason--but it's always surrounded by hate.

This is to create a special class of victims.

Murder is murder--if guilty--impose the sentence.

Other than being drunk, and the victim being gay, there was no clear reason for the attack.

#73 | Posted by moder8 at 2009-10-23 11:03 AM

okay so why does that mean that there should be more or harsher charges brought against him?

sounds like the drunk was just looking to be a fool and who says that the gay guy being there was the reason.
I know assholes like the drunk and any excuse will do to be an asshole.

just ask celisary,....BA DUMP DUMP

"Is there a special victim status for those that are victims to crimes of opportunity?"

That is pretty interesting. Is someone guilty of a hate crime because they hate the fact their victim has something they don't or want? Seems as though they did it because they hated.

I have to defend against them regularly.

#54 | Posted by moder8

Can you answer post #71...?

this is fucking stupid. they should get rid of all hate crime legislation. why should there be an enhancement based on a victim's characteristic? the crime should be punished for the crime, not enhanced because of shit like this. it perpetuates differing classes, and special treatment of groups based on race, sex, religion, etc. bullshit.

#73 | Posted by moder8

Mod--spouses get kicked around into a ball for not getting a beer, being pregnant--you name it.

How is that crime any different than the drunk in the bar assaulting the gay guy??

It's all hate and gets the sentence it deserves.

#75 | Posted by afkabl2

I never posted an opinion on her one way or the other. The SCOTUS abandoned the Constitution long ago and now only rule based on the party that pointed them. THere are exceptions, but overall, the court reflects the beliefs of the one who appointed them.

Like it was posted before, hate crime status is nothing more than a political pander to those classes of people for votes.

If you can show me that this has been a successful deterrent to these types of crimes and has curbed the occurrences of these crimes then perhaps I could support it.

The extra penalty doesn't help the victim anyway so if there isn't another benefit to society (like the lowering of crime) then it serves no purpose IMO.

#84. I might have missed it the first time, but it is 100% accurate.

"Whew! You don't know how much of a relief it is to hear that I was afraid she was the mysterious matronly blonde I've only caught glimpses of who's been stalking me lately"

There has to be some kind of mental disorder that involves the delusion of women stocking you which causes an unhealthy over inflated ego.

I'd check into that if I were you.

the delusion of women stocking you

What is he, canned green beans?

This "law" is just another way for the radical homosexual agenda to move forward and trying to muzzle anyone speaking against the leftstyle...I mean lifestyle. (That was an honest typo so I left it)

Who will be the first preacher arrested?

LOL Chapel

Good catch!!

Multi tasking isn't working for me this morning is it??

Focus Lisa, Focus!!!

And Chapel...he's more like a can of sour kraut!

I'm going to have a new tee made - TAKING GAY BACK! I WANNA BE SPECIAL!

Ok Buffalo Tits,

Someone murders my wife because she's wearing a football jersey for a rival team. Why should that attacker be given a lighter sentence that someone who murdered a gay?

(lemme guess, she did something to make him angry)

#35 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2009-10-23 09:56 AM | Reply | Flag:

I'm sure you think your name calling will make your point more valid. No. It makes you look like the small person you are. People have been killed for wearing colors, and football passions run high, and are as meaningful as burning or spitting on the flag to others. As petty as such motivations are, they are still not the same as killing someone simply because they exist. You face the same dangers as anyone wearing any colors---how would you like to face the additional dangers of being beaten or killed simply for the way you were born?

If you can show me that this has been a successful deterrent to these types of crimes and has curbed the occurrences of these crimes then perhaps I could support it.

#84 | Posted by eberly at 2009-10-23 11:33 AM | Reply | Flag

Maybe they should take away the extra penalties for killing a cop---or a federal employee---or the President. Would you feel better then?

This "law" is just another way for the radical homosexual agenda to move forward and trying to muzzle anyone speaking against the leftstyle...I mean lifestyle. (That was an honest typo so I left it)

Who will be the first preacher arrested?

#88 | Posted by The_Chapel at 2009-10-23 11:53 AM | Reply | Flag

You can still call them fags or queers or dykes. It has nothing to do with that. Of course, I doubt you would have the courage to do that to their face---even the women would probably be able to kick your ass.

While I completely support anti-discrimination legislation to protect you in the workplace, housing, etc.---i have a problem with ALL hate crime legislation.

A murder is a murder. A battery is a battery. The reasoning--whether hate, greed, jealosy, etc. is irrelevant. It is the ACT that is punished, not the state of mind.

I doubt you would have the courage to do that to their face---even the women would probably be able to kick your ass.

#93 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

I ain't scared of nutt'in as long as I have my Ford Pinto telescoping antenna.

Maybe they should take away the extra penalties for killing a cop---or a federal employee---or the President. Would you feel better then?

#92 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2009-10-23 12:32 PM | Reply | Flag
You have shit for brains bOob

There has to be some kind of mental disorder that involves the delusion of women stocking you which causes an unhealthy over inflated ego.

I'd check into that if I were you.

#86 | Posted by Lisa

Stocking? Oh stalking well I have just one thing to say about that:

pfffffft

Go ahead and sue me for unauthorized usage of your trademark Miss Easily Offended you can't get blood from a Gimme (yes that's a dare)

"women stocking"

Fishnets?

Garter belts?

Knotted nylons?

Kinky!

Maybe they should take away the extra penalties for killing a cop---or a federal employee---or the President. Would you feel better then?

a Federal employee? didn't know that.

I don't need to "feel better". I feel fine. My point was about lowering crime.

But since you asked.......I suppose it would be fair to take those away also.

a crime is a crime.

"the delusion of women stocking"

Paul McCartney had that delusion while married to ole' One Leg.

Once again, the left show that some people are more equal than others.

It is just downright pitiful to think that libtards claim the right is predujiced and racist when BS legislation like this goes through.

Like it or not, the punishment for most crimes take into account the perpetrators frame of mind and intentions at the time of the crime. Not just hate crimes. Our justice system punishes people not only on the basis of what they do, but also the mental state they possessed at the crime. For example, Premeditation and Deliberation homicide is treated far more seriously than Heat of Passion homicide. The former can get you the death penalty. With the latter you might end up just on probation.

the punishment for most crimes take into account the perpetrators frame of mind and intentions at the time of the crime. Not just hate crimes.

More reason there is no need for "hate crime laws."

Kanrei, perhaps I mistated it. The definition of many crimes take into account the perps frame of mind and intentions. A person is not considered guilty of the crime unless the frame of mind and intention exists.
Both murder and manslaughter are different crimes. What distinguishes them is the frame of mind and intentions of the killer. Simple assault, and hate crime assault are different crimes. What distinguishes them is the frame of mind and intentions of the person committing the assault.

"Maybe they should take away the extra penalties for killing a cop---or a federal employee---or the President. Would you feel better then?"

But that isn't criminalizing the perp's THOUGHT. They're still being punished for the ACT of killing a federal employee or president.

This hate crimes bill doesn't make it worse to kill a gay person, it makes it worse if you're killing the gay person because they're gay.

See the difference?

no you stated it fine Moder8 and you restated it fine also.

Kanrei's point is still valid.

Perhpaps we should just change the name of the law.

How about "Hate of a protected class Crime Law"?

doesn't have the same ring though does it?

#103 | Posted by moder8 at 2009-10-23 12:59 PM

Still curious to your thoughts on post #71.

The point of the legislation is to punish people who commit crimes for discriminatory reasons. -Moder8

I'll believe that when it is used when a white guy is attacked or killed. So far I haven't heard of any cases like that. Maybe they have happened. Love to see a link and I never ask for links.

"I'll believe that when it is used when a white guy is attacked or killed. So far I haven't heard of any cases like that. Maybe they have happened. Love to see a link and I never ask for links."

Seems to me if a black guy beats up a skinhead, he should be charged with a hate crime. Or vice versa if a skinhead beats up a black guy. Would either of them get a fair trial if charged with a "hate crime"?

Reading moderhate's posts in threads like this makes me wonder how many innocent clients of his ended up behind bars or if actually guilty got more time than they desired

Crispee: per #70 you state:

"I have had the unfortunate experience of being on a jury where this was the third try at some lawsuit. Collectively we couldn't get past page one of the jury instructions. Obviously we ended up a hung jury. Now they want to include "hate" as though it deserves its own category when a crime is committed? Why not let the DA's argue that aspect if applicable? Then convince the jury to give the maximum sentence. Would any skinhead with Swastikas on his arms and head, ever have a fair trial if being charged with a hate crime? Regarless of guilt or innocence?"

Sometimes both the jurors and the attorneys are simply stuck with the hand they are dealt. A skinhead with swastikas on his arms and head who is charged with a hate crime has two strikes against him going in. No matter how conscientious or fair a juror may be, there are certain things that on a conscious or unconscious level are going to prejudice a juror against a defendant. Making it worse, in the case of the skinhead, the DA was probably allowed to argue that the tattoos were evidence that could be considered for purposes of determining whether the defendant in fact did dislike certain minorities.
As for sentencing, that issue is strictly up to the judge after the defendant is convicted by the jury. The issue of penalty or punishment is not something that should ever even come up in front of the jury.

Over the years I have represented plenty of gangmembers who have the name of their gang tattooed either on the face or neck. Jurors claim they will try not to take those tattoos into account when deciding separate issues. But they are just human. Of course, on some level, they take it into account.

Tell me GimmeHead, what about my posts on this topic give you that impression? I mean other than that you are an ignorant mean spirited POS looking to find fault where none exists?

a Federal employee? didn't know that.

Smack your mail carrier, and it will be brought home to you.

I don't need to "feel better". I feel fine. My point was about lowering crime.

Your point was lost. Gay bashing was done with almost impunity in some areas---just as killing blacks was done with impunity in the South for generations, no matter what the evidence.

But since you asked.......I suppose it would be fair to take those away also.

Next time you are in a casual conversation with a cop--ask his opinion,

a crime is a crime.

The motivation for the crime is the point. White people are protected under hate crimes laws. All races are protected---to not protect gays would be obvious discrimination.

I'll believe that when it is used when a white guy is attacked or killed. So far I haven't heard of any cases like that. Maybe they have happened. Love to see a link and I never ask for links.

#107 | Posted by everlong at 2009-10-23 01:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

I am tickled to death that the left, and Obama, has chosen to give a few fruit cocktails extra protection and yet Obama is fiddling while our brave troops in Afghanistan desperatly need reinforcement. This, and other far left policies, is why I predict he will go down as the absolutely worst president in history. Hate crimes????????
What a bunch of touchy-feely panty waists.
How is that hope and change working for you?

Your point was lost.

on you....yes, I know.

Gay bashing was done with almost impunity in some areas---just as killing blacks was done with impunity in the South for generations,

yes....so?

The motivation for the crime is the point.

yes and as Moder8 pointed out, this is already recognized by the legal system without the need for a hate crime status...

the punishment for most crimes take into account the perpetrators frame of mind and intentions at the time of the crime. Not just hate crimes.....posted by Moder 8

Reading moderhate's posts in threads like this makes me wonder how many innocent clients of his ended up behind bars or if actually guilty got more time than they desired

#109 | Posted by Gimme_a_Scotch

He doesn't get paid for winning as a Public Defender. He's more like a cattle herder.

Tell me how much the left cares about "hate crimes" against people of faith? Tell me how many times a black person has been prosecuted for a hate crime against a white person? Are you going to try and argue that there are no blacks that kill white people and have hate in their hearts?
The next sad sack groups to be protected by hate crimes legislation will be Acorn workers, union members, bi-sexuals, ugly women, illegal immigrants, environmentalist, all plants, insects and animals, and criminals during the commission of a crime. You know, the usual Democratic constituency.

I will tell you one group that will never make the list. Babies in the womb.

what if a gay calls a gay a fagot then beats the shit out of him will he be charged with a hate crime or will he get a pass because he is gay?

No there's a good question.

#118. What happens if the black gay guy calls a white gay guy a faggot, and the white gay guy beats the shit out of the black gay guy, all the while berating him for daring to have a white partner and stating that he should stick with black lovers only? When the cops finally arrive, they start giggling uncontrollably while trying to take the report because they are both homophobic and racist, and find the event amusing in their small minds?

Try to unsort that little nut... Makes a simple assault and battery complicated.

+w

A crime is a crime. If I get beat up for being a white hetero Christian male... is my pain and suffering any different if I were black, or gay, or Atheist, or female? I'm still injured.

Crime = punishment. No need for "hate crime" legislation.

For those who support hate crime legislation, what is your rationale?

For those who support hate crime legislation, what is your rationale?

"WE need your MONEY and your VOTE!"

-the left

"A crime is a crime. If I get beat up for being a white hetero Christian male... is my pain and suffering any different if I were black, or gay, or Atheist, or female? I'm still injured"

You're missing the point. A lynching hurt more than the guy hanging from the tree. Anytime someone goes out specifically looking for a "jew" or a "fag", or a "(fill in the blank)" it's specifically intended not just to hurt that person, but an entire group of people. It's not just about the crime, it's about intimidating an entire group because they're different.

It's not just about the crime, it's about intimidating an entire group because they're different.

society still doesn't benefit from it. the entire group pays attention to it which is further proof that it is a political wedge to get votes and support.

A murder is a murder. A battery is a battery. The reasoning--whether hate, greed, jealosy, etc. is irrelevant. It is the ACT that is punished, not the state of mind.

#93 | Posted by __b__

Agree....

It is all surrounded by hate to the point that the person commits the act.

The state of mind can be important for the degree charged--but the Act is what is punished.

And what is the rationale? Deterrence to others to commit the same crime on a protected class of victims??

How has that worked out for capital punishment??

Group of people protected??

How about the group of homeless people??

How about the group of pregnant women??

How about the group of black kids in Chicago??

How about the group of hippies??

How about the group of veterans and service people??

Tell me GimmeHead....

#111 | Posted by moder8

Fantasize much moderhate?

"...This is to create a special class of victims.
...Murder is murder--if guilty--impose the sentence....#76 | Posted by MURPHY"

So tell us, Moron: You'll be in favor of removing Religion, which has been part of the hate-crimes laws for a long time now, from the law books?

And while we're at it: Let's just remove religious protections from the constitution as well. Who needs it?

Murder is just murder! Why should I be punished a little bit extra for going out and killing you just because you are a christian who wastes money and time in church on Sundays?

I mean, we don't really need to protect people for what they 'believe' right?

Heck, I suppose Hitler killing all them evil bank-owning jews in WWII wasn't a hate crime too?

Hell no! He just rounded them up just cause he wanted to off about 6 million inconvenient persons in his own country - people he never knew. Or maybe it was because they were ethnic and religious.

No need to protect them in WWII - which means we lost a lot of USA boys and girls in the military for no good reason.

There's no need to protect 'all dem jews' here in the good ol' USA too, right Murph?

You are one big-assed stupid moron.

DUMP-
How do you feel about our US law enforcement targeting Muslims due to their involvement with terrorist attacks?

If we view a "class" as protected (gays, race) - or dangerous (Muslims) - is it fair to lump all people from that particular class together?

So if I beat up a Muslim, is the burden of proof on me to prove I didn't do it out of hate? Are all Muslims (or gays, minorities) alike? Hurt one and you've necessarily acted out against the whole? How is that credibly determined?

"Murder is just murder! Why should I be punished a little bit extra for going out and killing you just because you are a christian who wastes money and time in church on Sundays?" - DUMP

Well, yes. Correct. I know you were being sarcastic, but how can you assign extra punishment because the victim belongs to some sort of protected class based on sexual preference, race, religion, etc? What rationale do you use?

So what happens when a regular old hetero white guy gets killed or beaten? Is he SOL?

Oorah: Usually statements made at the time of the crime, or admissions to the police made later on.

So, I hate the Yankees. If I kill a Yankees fan and I yell, "Jeter's gay" do I get a double whammy?

"society still doesn't benefit from it."

Huh? You're willing to let the bad guys send a message, but not the good guys?!?

Oorah, if the police can prove you killed Jeter BECAUSE he is gay, then yes, you get the double whammy.

How about a hate crime bill against the house and senate for any member that tries to fuck the American People. With an instant verdict and a swift firing squad after. That will clean out the communist and gays and other assholes that are screwing America.

"If someone is murdered (other than accidental)--it is the result of hate.

It is not protecting ALL citizens.

This just creates special classes of victims.

It's bs."

#3 | Posted by MURPHY

I agree.

We have laws in place, and sentencing guidelines that address the act of murder in its various degrees.

Unless the perpetrator is demented and says, with a smile, "I murdered them because I liked them" it is realistic to ascertain that a victim was murdered because they were hated.

Our federal and state lawmakers, state district attorneys and the attorney general should focus more on delivering with certainty those punishments, in their entirety, that are meted out by judges or juries of our peers.

No early parole for good behavior, no 'life terms' for those sentenced to death.

No classifications for the crime of murder are necessary other than "all murder which shall be perpetrated by means of poison, or by lying in wait, or by any other kind of willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing, or which shall be committed in the perpetration or attempt to perpetrate, any arson, rape, robbery, or burglary, shall be deemed murder of the first degree; and all other kinds of murder shall be deemed murder of the second degree; and the jury before whom any person indicted for murder shall be tried, shall, if they find the person guilty thereof, ascertain in their verdict, whether it be murder of the first or second degree; but if such person shall be convicted by confession, the court shall proceed by examination of witnesses, to determine the degree of the crime, and give sentence accordingly." (Pa. Act of April 22, 1794.)

Pretty straight forward and therefor no need for any special classification of the victim.

So, I hate the Yankees. If I kill a Yankees fan and I yell, "Jeter's gay" do I get a double whammy?

#133 | Posted by OohRah

Not if I'm the judge then you'll get the biggest tickertape parade in Boston's history, your choice of 12 virgins to deflower and I'll make sure that Powerball is rigged to select your numbers 52 weeks in a row

Hate Crimes in California:

To prove that the defendant is guilty of this crime, the People must prove that:

1. The defendant used force to willfully interfere with another person's free exercise or enjoyment of the right (or privledge) to , established by the law or Constitution of California or the United States;

2. The defendant did so in whole or part because of the other person's actual or perceived (disability, gender, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or association with a person or group have this/these actual or perceived characteristics.

AND

3. The defendant intended to interfere with the other person's legally protected right (or privlege).

If you find that the defendant had more than one reason to commit the alleged acts, the bias described here must have been a substantial motivating factor. A substantial factor is more than a trivial or remote factor. However, it does not need to be the only factor which motivated the conduct.

GIMME -
I like that line of thinking.

#137

Are all murders due to hatred? What about somebody who was in the wrong place at the wrong time, witnessed something go down, gets taken out? Somebody who gets shot randomly as part of a gang initiation? Somebody who gets whacked because he might reveal some damaging information (like the husband who murders the mistress because she's revealed she's pregnant and is going to have the baby)?

Quite different from "I'm gonna murder that queer cuz he's a homo-faggot gay fruitcake rumproaster, and that just makes me sick."

Don't worry skinheads. You can still beat up any gay for being a liberal, without being charged with a hate crime. Just be careful how you word it when you smash their face in.

It makes you look like the small person you are.

#90 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2009-10-23 12:24 PM

bOoB goes full retard again.

You can still call them fags or queers or dykes. It has nothing to do with that. Of course, I doubt you would have the courage to do that to their face---even the women would probably be able to kick your ass.

#92 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2009-10-23 12:38 PM | Reply | Flag: THAT IS WHAT I CALL THEM SO....

Not my style there BB but thanks for letting us know how you play the game.

There will be a time soon where if a preacher condemns the lifestyle on Biblical grounds it will be grounds for arrest. Or any of us for that matter. This is ALL about trying to make us agree with the lifestyle of homosexuals and other deviant forms.

The obvious direction is clear. Commit violence against white, male, heterosexual Christians and you avoid a hate crime penalty.

The obvious direction is clear. Commit violence against white, male, heterosexual Christians and you avoid a hate crime penalty.

#145 | Posted by Diablo at 2009-10-23 11:50 PM | Reply | Flag

All that you mention are protected from hate crimes except for males and females. All whites are protected, all races are protected. All Christians are protected, all religions are protected. All heterosexuals are protected, all sexual oprientations are protected.

To avoid a hate crime, all you need to do is not attack someone for who they are.

Bill O'Reilly should be happy.

He finally gets extra legal protection from those lesbian gangs.

Next thing you know he liberals will be protected and it will be a hate crime to just call them what they are. A Pinko Commie Bastard

Questions:
1.There are some who take perverted sexual pleasure in torture, murder etc. Do they get a technical pass on the prosecutorial hate issue based on that perverted lust, or is lust in that case considered the same as hate?
2.Is the Matthew Shepard act like Roe v Wade based on a lie, therefore this hate crimes bill is based on a lie as well?
3. Is any kind of sexual orientation certifiable?
4. Is sexual orientation subject to change on any given day?
5.How is it possible to determine that hate is in the heart of anyone given just one example as found in question #1?
6.Irrespective of the law, is abortion, which is code word for murder of an unborn child an act of hate on the part of the mother or the physician who carries it out?
7.Did God create the human race as manifested in the life of Adam & Eve who are the alleged source of ALL humans, genetically speaking, or did God create all races & place them in Adam & Eve?
Waiting with non-offensive *green breath (*utilizing every other inhale & exhale)for some rational comments and solutions to any and ALL of the aforementioned issues/topics.

You can still beat up any gay for being a liberal, without being charged with a hate crime. Just be careful how you word it when you smash their face in.

Which begs the question, why is attacking someone because they're gay or straight or christian worse than attacking someone because of their political affiliation, occupation, hair color, perceived income, etc?

SEN-
You need to ask the thought police.

It really is not that complex. Why are rightwingers having so much difficulty understanding the concept (regardless of whether they agree with it or not)? Reading the comments of SEN, HLL and BPH is only confirming my notion that wingnuts just aren't that sharp.

Read my comment again MODER8. Then apologize.

worse than attacking someone because of their political affiliation, occupation, hair color, perceived income, etc?

#150 | Posted by sentinel at 2009-10-24 11:02 AM | Reply | Flag

I've never heard of any of these attacks---LINK???

How about a link to a liberal or conservative dragged behind a car to their death, or beaten and left to die tied to a fence because they voted for Bush, or Obama. How about a link to anyone attacked for any of the other categories you linked to. Let's see if you can find the flaw in your logic.

Next thing you know he liberals will be protected and it will be a hate crime to just call them what they are. A Pinko Commie Bastard

#148 | Posted by bph320 at 2009-10-24 09:31 AM | Reply | Flag

America was founded on liberal policies--freedom is a liberal concept. Freedom of the press is a liberal concept. Freedom of religion is a liberal concept. The right to gather peacefully is a liberal concept. The right to keep and bear arms is a liberal concept. The right to Free Speech is a liberal concept.

You seem to be under the delusion that this law prevents you from expressing your hate verbally--no--you cand still call homosexuals--fags--queers--
dykes---or whatever name you can come up with. It has nothing to do with your right to Free Speech. It just says you can't attack them without having more time added to your sentence. You are a perfect example as to why we need two countries---wouldn't you be happier in a country with no liberals--no liberals in congress or the white house ever---an all conservative Supreme Court? No affirmative action--no hate laws---no unions--no welfare--no gay rights or marriage---no social security--small taxes for the rich--no workmens comp---no push for Universal Health care? Wouldn't that be a better country for you? If not--why not?

It really is not that complex. Why are rightwingers having so much difficulty understanding the concept (regardless of whether they agree with it or not)? Reading the comments of SEN, HLL and BPH is only confirming my notion that wingnuts just aren't that sharp.

#152 | Posted by moder8 at 2009-10-24 11:56 AM ///

Reading your lack of substantive comments has eliminated any possible chance at credibility compounded by your insults of 3 posters, as well any and all so-called right wingers, of which I for one am not.
As to being sharp, you have no discourse of any value, excluding your all to often used adhominem tactic which renders your off-topic comments null and void at best.
In closing, try responding with specific answers to the issues/questions presented and the snickers will cease.

Do a google search for Kick a Ginger Day and hate crime. You might be surprised what you find. Are you saying that's not a hate crime because it doesn't happen every day?

Do you really doubt people have been singled out and targeted with acts of violence because they are homeless or prostitutes?

...or doctors who perform abortions. That's another group that has been attacked and murdered for their occupations.

Sounds like the only HATERS are scared of these laws!

The people against these "hate crime" laws are the first who would use them if their child was, beaten, tortured, doused with gasoline and burned to death (like Matthew Sheppard was) if the killers hated them just because they are white, or Christian, or ugly, or stupid, or ANY of the crazy reasons people hate.

These laws are designed to deter, to make those who would commit these types of crimes think twice. They will change society for the better, people will be more aware.

Do a google search for Kick a Ginger Day and hate crime.

Post a link--don't ask me to do your work. Prove your point. Show me a ginger that was ever lynched or killed.

You might be surprised what you find.

Surprise me--it is your point---make it yourself.

Are you saying that's not a hate crime because it doesn't happen every day?

I'm saying it is not a hate crime because I have not seen or heard of hundreds of gingers being target for death---for severe beatings---and not seen any court trials or protests by gingers. What you describe is simply bullying by punks--not a hate crime.

Do you really doubt people have been singled out and targeted with acts of violence because they are homeless or prostitutes?

Not at all. But the attacks are equal opportunity, and not based on race or religion or sexual orientation. The attacks are as equal as all attacks on the general population. However, I would support extra time added for attacking prostitutes and the homeless. They are, for the most part, vulnerable members of society.

You enjoy the benefit of hate crime protection--why would you deny it to others? Maybe you should answer the questions asked in my #155 post about separate countries. I think we would both be happier if we weren't members of the same nation. At least answer the question--If not--why not?

#157 | Posted by sentinel at 2009-10-24 12:44 PM | Reply | Flag

...or doctors who perform abortions. That's another group that has been attacked and murdered for their occupations.

#158 | Posted by sentinel at 2009-10-24 12:50 PM | Reply | Flag

I'm all for special punishment for such attacks on abortion doctors. But your post intimated ALL jobs--just like ALL gays are covered---just like ALL religions are covered---just like ALL races are covered. Not just one particular job title. People are rarely attacked for their job--even abortion doctors. You insist on missing the point. Answer #155

Dear the chapel

I don't care if you agree with "gay lifestyle" or not, the point is you will no longer be able to attack a gay person without serious time.

Gay is not a "lifestyle" it's just none of your business!

Why do you care?

In my experience "the one's who yell the loudest want it the most!"

"you will no longer be able to attack a gay person without serious time. "

Already is against the law, gay or not.

What you mean to say is those who might speak out against the lifestyle will be charged with a crime. Again, it is the "acceptance" that is at issue and the radicals want to shove down our throats....you know, kind of like Obama is doing with his policies, whether we like them or not.

The obvious direction is clear. Commit violence against white, male, heterosexual Christians and you avoid a hate crime penalty.

#145 | Posted by Diablo at 2009-10-23 11:50 PM

Sadly, I'm afraid it's beginning to look that way, Diablo. Seems everyone else is under the protection of the "hate crime" umbrella except for them.

Hey idiots, white, male heterosexual Christians are protected by hate crime legislation same as everyone else. (Are you righties just pretending not to get it, or are you all really that stupid that you really don't get it?)

Actually moderhate we (I use the plural despite not being a Christian myself) do get it we want an eye for an eye so to speak not both eyes but I wouldn't expect a wannabe shyster incompetently posing as a public defender to realize that

the chapel

Are you really this stupid? I'm asking because you just don't seem to understand.

Speech is not a crime, NEVER has been in this country.

You clearly HATE, in your own words refuse to "accept" gay people for what ever reason. I can't imagine gay people are chasing you down; trying to get in your pants so what EXACTLY is the problem? Live and let live. Open your bible and read "do unto others" "judge not lest you be judged" what part of these principals don't you practice? You can't just use God when it's convenient, you must look into your cold, hateful heart and find some compassion for your fellow man.

Our founding fathers were clear about "separation of church and state" so if your HATE is based on religion we the people must protect each other from it and you.

Bush rammed his policies down the entire country's throat, so suck it up.

"Speech is not a crime, NEVER has been in this country."

Which is WHY this is a bad "law". It WILL be now. Obama is also running fast to try and make speech a crime.

All classes are covered by equal protection under the law so why did we need this new one then?

Exactly.

What you mean to say is those who might speak out against the lifestyle will be charged with a crime.

#163 | Posted by The_Chapel at 2009-10-24 02:02 PM | Reply | Flag

Since you don't seem to get it, Let me see if I can get it to sink in. Maybe the Bart Simpson approach will work for you.

It will not be a crime to speak out against gays.

It will not be a crime to speak out against gays.

It will not be a crime to speak out against gays.

It will not be a crime to speak out against gays.

It will not be a crime to speak out against gays.

It will not be a crime to speak out against gays.

It will not be a crime to speak out against gays.

It will not be a crime to speak out against gays.

It will not be a crime to speak out against gays.

It will not be a crime to speak out against gays.

It will not be a crime to speak out against gays.

It will not be a crime to speak out against gays.

Hopefully that clears it up for you.

You clearly HATE, in your own words refuse to "accept" gay people for what ever reason.

And your projections are not on target either. I do not and have never said I hate anyone, gays included. Sorry pal. Quit reading things into what is not there. I have friends and co-workers who choose this lifestyle but will not compromise my beliefs and many of them know it.

The lifestyle I do not believe is the right way to go and I have every right to say it if I like. Or is that a crime? Seems like you are making it out to be one.

And that is what people like you are trying to do every day. Make things up, project, use hate and try to get everyone, regardless, to accept the lifestyle.

Hey Bob,

The Truth or Hansequences approach never works.

Don't you have some moonstacks to blabber about.

Here's your links lazybones:

The chapel

BEING GAY IS NOT A "LIFESTYLE"

The fact that you use the term "lifestyle" means you don't understand! You have made it PAINFULLY CLEAR, you think you are superior to gay people!

They don't need your "approval" or "acceptance"!

Gay people are everywhere and everyone, republicans, conservatives, every race, every religion, male, female, all live different lives, believe different things, different jobs, cities, country, they are families with children, they even put up with you.

THEY EXIST AND DESERVE EQUAL PROTECTION AND EQUAL RIGHTS.

END OF DISCUSSION.

You bore me.

Don't know who that was directed at, but it obviously didn't apply to me.

#172 | Posted by sentinel at 2009-10-24 03:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

It applies to every American---the answer is either a yes or no, and asks why that particular answer. I doubt you grasp the concept any more than you edo hate crime legislation. Fortunately we have a President and congress who does see the point.

Don't you have some moonstacks to blabber about.

#171 | Posted by The_Chapel at 2009-10-24 03:20 PM | Reply | Flag

I think the blabber comes from you. I doubt you have any explanation either. Just like the other morons who like to mock it but have no explanation.

Let's hear your blabber.

Not taking the bait BB. I don't even click on any of your moronic conspiracy stuff. I leave that to you and the Goat.

Know what rhymes with Moon?

Loon.

And you take the award in that department.

Uh oh, is that a hate crime? Wink. wink.

"THEY EXIST AND DESERVE EQUAL PROTECTION AND EQUAL RIGHTS"

From name calling to yelling. Awesome.

Yes, they do exist and they are ALREADY covered under the current laws with equal protection.

And hey, sometimes I bore me. So get in line.

Does not mean I am not correct and most know it.

#176 | Posted by The_Chapel at 2009-10-24 03:46 PM | Reply | Flag: Punk Boy response

Giving harsher penalties for a "hate crime" is not about pity for the victim but to acknowledge that hate crimes degrades society much more than crimes against random victims.

Anybody have the statistics or a count of how many homosexuals get brutally attacked or murdered each year?

Homosexuality is not a dominant characteristic of society, thus homosexuals are a minority and are at a disadvantage if targeted, especially those who don't have the luxury of mobility that might enable them to find support from other homosexuals.

This law has in mind the poor soul who's living amongst a bigoted hateful community, perhaps still in high school, and doesn't have the means to escape yet but is being targeted by the haters.

A law like this would send a message: hatred enacted toward anyone of this often-targeted group will not be tolerated.

Are GimmeHead and Chapel really this stupid? It has to be an act. No way they really are this stupid.

Yes, they do exist and they are ALREADY covered under the current laws with equal protection.

#177 | POSTED BY THE_CHAPEL

No we don't. Let's put a name on this, I am a gay male and I don't have equal protection under the law. Nor does my partner. We cannot get married to protect our property, we cannot file taxes jointly, and I have to prove every contractual part of our relationship because I cannot have the simple task of getting a piece of paper to make our lives any easier. It's easy for a man and a woman. I just want to have the same EQUAL protections like them.

Anybody have the statistics or a count of how many homosexuals get brutally attacked or murdered each year?
#180 | POSTED BY SCRUMPLET

The following are U.S. hate crime statistics collected by the FBI under The Hate Crimes Statistics Act of 1990:

2007: 1,460 hate crime offenses based on sexual-orientation bias were reported by law enforcement agencies. Of these offenses:
59.2 percent were classified as anti-male homosexual bias.
24.8 percent were reported as anti-homosexual bias.
12.6 percent were prompted by an anti-female homosexual bias.
1.8 percent were the result of an anti-heterosexual bias.
1.6 percent were classified as anti-bisexual bias.

2006: 1,415 hate crime offenses based on sexual-orientation bias were reported by law enforcement agencies. Of these offenses:
62.3 percent were classified as anti-male homosexual biased.
20.7 percent were classified as anti-homosexual biased.
13.6 percent were classified as anti-female homosexual biased.
2.0 percent were classified as anti-heterosexual biased.
1.5 percent were classified as anti-bisexual biased.

2005: 1,171 hate crime offenses based on sexual-orientation bias were reported by law enforcement agencies. Of these offenses:
60.9 percent were anti-male homosexual.
19.5 percent were anti-homosexual.
15.4 percent were anti-female homosexual.
2.0 percent were anti-heterosexual.
2.3 percent were anti-bisexual.

Hey Greeneyedguy,

Explaining anything to the chapel is pointless, he clearly thinks he is superior, does not listen, does not understand, can't be honest with himself or others.

I drove myself insane trying...the scary thing is he claims he works with gay people!!

Good luck!

#183 Greeneyedguy

Thanks for posting those, Green.

Giving harsher penalties for a "hate crime" is not about pity for the victim but to acknowledge that hate crimes degrades society much more than crimes against random victims.

Then why aren't hate crime laws simply worded to say harsher penalties will be given for targeting a victim because they belonged to any group of people in society, rather than listing the types of prejudice that are or aren't covered?

None of the proponents of this current method have been able to explain to me why targeting gingers is less harmful to society than targeting christians. The dismissive attitude when this is brought up is extremely hypocritical.

None of the proponents of this current method have been able to explain to me why targeting gingers is less harmful to society than targeting christians. The dismissive attitude when this is brought up is extremely hypocritical.

#186 | Posted by sentinel at 2009-10-24 10:18 PM | Reply | Fla

It has been explained, many times and in many ways. You simply aren't capable of grasping the concept. That doesn't mean the concept is invalid, it simply means it is beyond your capability of understanding. You think kick a ginger day is the same as the horrors blacks, gays, Jews, and others have gone through. There is no reasoning with that kind of logic that will ever makes sense to you. We'll have to live with that fact, and so will you.

Buffalo Boob, people like you give liberals a bad name. You're using the exact same arguments to discriminate against other groups that bigots use to discriminate against ones already covered by hate crime laws.

Why do you hate gingers? Bigot.