NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-10-27-hatecrimes_N.htm


TODAY
Hate crimes against gays increased in 2007, up 6% from 2006 even though the overall number of hate crimes dropped slightly, the FBI reported Monday.
There were 7,624 hate crimes reported in 2007, down 1% from 2006. Crimes based on sexual orientation — 1,265 in 2007 — have been rising since 2005. A hate crime is one motivated by bias against a person's race, religion, sexual orientation or other status.

"Until we make laws that make it clear these attacks are not OK, the nation will continue to be scarred," says Neil Giuliano, president of the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation. In 19 states, hate crime laws don't cover sexual orientation.

Other changes in 2007:

• Race-related incidents, 51% of the reported hate crimes, fell 3%.

• Incidents against Latinos increased for the fourth year, from 426 in 2003 to 595.

• Bias incidents against Asians increased by 4% from 181 to 188.

• Crimes against Muslims declined 26% to 115 incidents, considerably down from 481 in 2001. Jack Levin, a criminologist at Northeastern University, says that drop shows the effect of 9/11 waning.

Latinos and Asians, he says, are likely to be targets as the economy worsens. "Working-class Americans feel they have to compete more with immigrants," Levin says.



So, fun little hate crime bit. Anyone have any ideas why gays are targeted more now? The Asian and Latino bit is explained, but how do homosexuals fit into this?

So, fun little hate crime bit. Anyone have any ideas why gays are targeted more now? The Asian and Latino bit is explained, but how do homosexuals fit into this?

Election year "Traditional Family Values" fervor being whipped up by McSame and Caribou Barbie?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-10-27-hatecrimes_N.htm
So, fun little hate crime bit. Anyone have any ideas why gays are targeted more now? The Asian and Latino bit is explained, but how do homosexuals fit into this?Incomprehension, maybe?

Because gay marriage is winning?

Election year "Traditional Family Values" fervor being whipped up by McSame and Caribou Barbie?

Normally Id agree here, but the "Family Values" card has not been played very much by either of them.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-10-27-hatecrimes_N.htm




So, fun little hate crime bit. Anyone have any ideas why gays are targeted more now? The Asian and Latino bit is explained, but how do homosexuals fit into this?

Cause people are screwed up in the head and can't stand people enjoying things they consider immoral.

There could simply be more reporting of crimes recently, and there could be a random increase. I don't think there's any particular reason for it.

Because gay marriage is winning?

This is true, and had not crossed my mind. Now that a few more states are allowing it, the big bad gay man must seem scarier.

I blame the Jews.

This is true, and had not crossed my mind. Now that a few more states are allowing it, the big bad gay man must seem scarier.I thought this was about homosexuality in general.

I thought this was about homosexuality in general.

Eh?

I blame the Jews.

Oh please, if the Jews were behind it then how does that explain Muslim hate crimes actually going down?

Eh?Whenever somebody makes a statement about homosexuality, I have found, that they generally mean men.
That's not the entirety of homosexuality. It includes women as well.

I blame the Jews.

to protect Gays we must kill Jews *nod*

to protect Gays we must kill Jews *nod*I know the perfect person. :p

Whenever somebody makes a statement about homosexuality, I have found, that they generally mean men.
That's not the entirety of homosexuality. It includes women as well.

I used the expression "big bad gay man" as a figure of speech.

What's the trend? Could we be seeing here just a greater willingness to report on the part of victims and a greater willingness to identify hate crimes as such by police?

Also, was anyone else bothered by this paragraph and quote?

Latinos and Asians, he says, are likely to be targets as the economy worsens. "Working-class Americans feel they have to compete more with immigrants," Levin says.

I used the expression "big bad gay man" as a figure of speech.OK. :p

Latinos and Asians, he says, are likely to be targets as the economy worsens. "Working-class Americans feel they have to compete more with immigrants," Levin says.

Extremelly.

What's the trend? Could we be seeing here just a greater willingness to report on the part of victims and a greater willingness to identify hate crimes as such by police?

Also, was anyone else bothered by this paragraph and quote?

Latinos and Asians, he says, are likely to be targets as the economy worsens. "Working-class Americans feel they have to compete more with immigrants," Levin says.Legal immigrants, no. Illegals, yes.
It's kind of sad that others are targeted because of it. :(

Legal immigrants, no. Illegals, yes.

That was not my objection.

That was not my objection.I know.
I was saying that I think they feel the need because illegal immigrants are willing to work for lower wages. At least, the ones around here are. o_0

I think it's most likely attributable to more and better reporting; hopefully, people are much more likely to report hate-motivated assaults as such, allowing us to get a good feel for just how much of this violence is happening out there.

Legal immigrants, no. Illegals, yes.
It's kind of sad that others are targeted because of it. :(
It's sad that others are targeted...? Please tell me that you do not mean to imply that you would be okay with illegal immigrants being targeted for hate crimes.

To the OP:

Well, ]DUH. Gays are demanding equal rights. Obviously they must be beaten down again. Where do they fit in? In exactly the same place the ethnic minorities do -- they've brought attention to themselves. That always pisses off the bigots.

It's an election year, and one side is talking repeatedly about dividing the people of my country. Naturally, that will lead to some people getting far more "into the election" than usual. When you make some group an "other", those who are outside that "other" group tend to feel that it's okay to treat the "other" poorly.

Whenever somebody makes a statement about homosexuality, I have found, that they generally mean men.
That's not the entirety of homosexuality. It includes women as well.

Yes, but on the whole, even homophobes are more tolerant of gay women than they are of gay men. After all, woman-on-woman porn is popular among hetero men. Man-on-man, not so much. It makes 'em wonder.

Yes, but on the whole, even homophobes are more tolerant of gay women than they are of gay men. After all, woman-on-woman porn is popular among hetero men. Man-on-man, not so much. It makes 'em wonder.

Some guys are even uncomfortable about male-female porn because there might be a...penis...in it!

it's sad that others are targeted...? Please tell me that you do not mean to imply that you would be okay with illegal immigrants being targeted for hate crimes.

Dey took er jerbs!

Some guys are even uncomfortable about male-female porn because there might be a...penis...in it!
It's not that there's a penis they're uncomfortable with, it's that it is at least twice bigger than theirs.

It's not that there's a penis they're uncomfortable with, it's that it is at least twice bigger than theirs.

Yeah, sort of like how when you ask a group of guys all of them are somehow a couple of standard deviations above the mean. Funny how 100% of the sample reflects, oh, maybe 2.5% of the population or so.

It's unfortunate. Though I hate the...well...hate, I am disappointed we still feel the need to put homosexuals in a safety bubble with the "hate" crime nonsense. It's a crime...simple, yeah?

It's unfortunate. Though I hate the...well...hate, I am disappointed we still feel the need to put homosexuals in a safety bubble with the "hate" crime nonsense. It's a crime...simple, yeah?

We have two men charged with assault and battery. One got drunk in a bar and took a swing at someone over some stupid argument. The second hates black people so much he beat the shit out of a black man. Which one is more likely to continue damaging society?

This is why the "hate" distinction exists, offenders who commit crimes out of hate for a specific group of people are going to continue being violent towards that group.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-10-27-hatecrimes_N.htm




So, fun little hate crime bit. Anyone have any ideas why gays are targeted more now? The Asian and Latino bit is explained, but how do homosexuals fit into this?

I wonder if it is because adopting hate crime legislation in many states is relatively new


??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

So, fun little hate crime bit. Anyone have any ideas why gays are targeted more now? The Asian and Latino bit is explained, but how do homosexuals fit into this?
It could be that the gay community isn't necessarily being targeted more but rather the number of actual reported incidents are on the rise, which may make it appear as though there is a rise in the crimes, when in fact, there may be the same number, but a greater number in the past had gone unreported.

We have two men charged with assault and battery. One got drunk in a bar and took a swing at someone over some stupid argument. The second hates black people so much he beat the shit out of a black man. Which one is more likely to continue damaging society?

This is why the "hate" distinction exists, offenders who commit crimes out of hate for a specific group of people are going to continue being violent towards that group.

You listed two completely different scenarios. What if the drunk guy had taken a swing at a black guy? What if someone took a swing at someone he thought was gay but really wasn't?

Really, it should be up to the discretion of the judge.

It could be that the gay community isn't necessarily being targeted more but rather the number of actual reported incidents are on the rise, which may make it appear as though there is a rise in the crimes, when in fact, there may be the same number, but a greater number in the past had gone unreported.

this is along the same lines of what I was thinking too, especially since hate crime legislation for sexual orientations is barely starting to get the attention it deserves.

You listed two completely different scenarios. What if the drunk guy had taken a swing at a black guy? What if someone took a swing at someone he thought was gay but really wasn't?

Really, it should be up to the discretion of the judge.That is only if the law permits motivations to be a factor in sentencing, which is precisely the issue. In most states, racial hatred is permitted to be a factor in sentencing; hatred of homosexuals is not.

You listed two completely different scenarios.

Of course he did. He was pointing out the difference between hate crimes vs. other crimes.

In both of the cases mentioned, the crime is assault. But the motive for the crime is different. And, despite claims to the contrary, taking motivation into account at sentencing is nothing new.

What if the drunk guy had taken a swing at a black guy?

Was it because they had an argument? Or because the other guy was black?

What if someone took a swing at someone he thought was gay but really wasn't?

If the assault was motivated by perceived sexual orientation, it is a hate crime.

Really, it should be up to the discretion of the judge.

It is. Sentencing guidelines are just that - guidelines.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-10-27-hatecrimes_N.htm




So, fun little hate crime bit. Anyone have any ideas why gays are targeted more now? The Asian and Latino bit is explained, but how do homosexuals fit into this?
Over reporting by the homosexual community?

Over reporting by the homosexual community?

Overreporting?


Wait, you think that gays are making it up that theyre being targeted?


Why does this not suprise me?

I'll try to avoid the subtleties of each supposed scenario. They are numerous and we could go on forever. My problem is that minorities receive special protection under the law, not equal. And it's because of that, I feel, that it will take much, much longer for those minorities to be truly accepted by the majority.

Though honestly, it's sad that the majority just can't accept differences when presented. Fear is a big stinker.

not true - if you are attacked for being straight or white or whatever it is also considered and can be prosecuted as a hate crime.

I'll try to avoid the subtleties of each supposed scenario. They are numerous and we could go on forever. My problem is that minorities receive special protection under the law, not equal.

No, they don't.

Maybe it has too do with an increase in hate crimes against conservatives. Shooting homes with Conservative yard signs, lynching in effigy of conservative figures, assault of persons with McCain/Palin sympathies (and I am not including the supposed "assault" on that idiot woman who carved a B into her face and claimed she was mugged). Maybe this is in retaliation for the above. Maybe it is because you have more and more conservatives who feel disenfranchised and feel like the opposite side is going to shut down their political opinion with the fairness doctrine and force them to give up their self-reliance and faith, and are thus striking out at those who the more radical conservatives see as the opposite of everything they stand for.

But of course not, it's simply because all of us Conservatives are evil hatemongers who all want to kill all dem blacks and jews and gays and catholics and mexicans and muslims who ain't like us.

I'll try to avoid the subtleties of each supposed scenario. They are numerous and we could go on forever. My problem is that minorities receive special protection under the law, not equal. And it's because of that, I feel, that it will take much, much longer for those minorities to be truly accepted by the majority.

Though honestly, it's sad that the majority just can't accept differences when presented. Fear is a big stinker.



How is it special protection? If someone killed a white guy because he hated whitey, thatd be a hate crime as well (in theory).


I dont think you understand the purpose of hate crime laws. The goal is to prevent crimes whose motive is to instill fear in a group of people.

For example, killing an openly gay guy to send a message that your town "dont take to kindly to queers" and to keep them out or in the closet.

Maybe it has too do with an increase in hate crimes against conservatives. Shooting homes with Conservative yard signs, lynching in effigy of conservative figures, assault of persons with McCain/Palin sympathies (and I am not including the supposed "assault" on that idiot woman who carved a B into her face and claimed she was mugged). Maybe this is in retaliation for the above. Maybe it is because you have more and more conservatives who feel disenfranchised and feel like the opposite side is going to shut down their political opinion with the fairness doctrine and force them to give up their self-reliance and faith, and are thus striking out at those who the more radical conservatives see as the opposite of everything they stand for.
Care to show an example of such actually happening?
But of course not, it's simply because all of us Conservatives are evil hatemongers who all want to kill all dem blacks and jews and gays and catholics and mexicans and muslims who ain't like us.
Who said that?

Maybe it has too do with an increase in hate crimes against conservatives. Shooting homes with Conservative yard signs, lynching in effigy of conservative figures, assault of persons with McCain/Palin sympathies (and I am not including the supposed "assault" on that idiot woman who carved a B into her face and claimed she was mugged). Maybe this is in retaliation for the above. Maybe it is because you have more and more conservatives who feel disenfranchised and feel like the opposite side is going to shut down their political opinion with the fairness doctrine and force them to give up their self-reliance and faith, and are thus striking out at those who the more radical conservatives see as the opposite of everything they stand for.

You want to prove that any of this is happening on a scale worth talking about and that its not equally perpetrated against liberals?

The above post is a perfect example of the conservative persecution complex. Thank you, I couldnt have typed a better parody myself.

Care to show an example of such actually happening?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/sarahpalin/3271128/Sarah-Palin-effigy-hung-by-noose-in-Halloween-display.html

http://www.local6.com/politics/17784129/detail.html

http://www.ohio.com/news/top_stories/30930849.html

http://www.zombietime.com/hall_of_shame/120-2044_IMG.JPG

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obama-supporter-assaults-female-mccain-volunteer-in-new-york/

http://www.katu.com/news/30847164.html

just pointing out a few instances

Maybe it has too do with an increase in hate crimes against conservatives. Shooting homes with Conservative yard signs, lynching in effigy of conservative figures, assault of persons with McCain/Palin sympathies (and I am not including the supposed "assault" on that idiot woman who carved a B into her face and claimed she was mugged). Maybe this is in retaliation for the above. Maybe it is because you have more and more conservatives who feel disenfranchised and feel like the opposite side is going to shut down their political opinion with the fairness doctrine and force them to give up their self-reliance and faith, and are thus striking out at those who the more radical conservatives see as the opposite of everything they stand for.

Ohhhhh, well that makes it all okay then. The conservatives feel disenfranchised because we aren't a theocracy... great. Well then I guess liberals should just get used to the violent attacks because they are too well educated and not authoritarian evangelicals which must mean they are trying to ban religion and make the US a communist dictatorship.


But of course not, it's simply because all of us Conservatives are evil hatemongers who all want to kill all dem blacks and jews and gays and catholics and mexicans and muslims who ain't like us.

That's more likely.

Ohhhhh, well that makes it all okay then. The conservatives feel disenfranchised because we aren't a theocracy... great. Well then I guess liberals should just get used to the violent attacks because they are too well educated and not authoritarian evangelicals which must mean they are trying to ban religion and make the US a communist dictatorship.

I never said that makes it okay. Hate Crimes of any kind are horrendus. I am just pointing out that it is a matter of one side lashing out against the other side and then that side striking back. And FYI, most conservatives don't like theocracies, we think that the Founding Fathers had it right when they limited government power, and most of us conservatives are also libertarians. But when people commit hate crimes against one group, that group retaliates, and it begins to escalate and make problems worse for both groups.

That's more likely.

And that is why I put that in there, to show your own prejudices and hatred. Thank you for obliging me.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/sarahpalin/3271128/Sarah-Palin-effigy-hung-by-noose-in-Halloween-display.html

http://www.local6.com/politics/17784129/detail.html

http://www.ohio.com/news/top_stories/30930849.html

http://www.zombietime.com/hall_of_shame/120-2044_IMG.JPG

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obama-supporter-assaults-female-mccain-volunteer-in-new-york/

http://www.katu.com/news/30847164.html

just pointing out a few instances


That is obviously in retaliation for the violence being perpetrated by Conservatives. Oh wait, not only is it not okay for this to be done by anybody, using it as an excuse to do it to others is even lamer.

That is obviously in retaliation for the violence being perpetrated by Conservatives. Oh wait, not only is it not okay for this to be done by anybody, using it as an excuse to do it to others is even lamer.

I never said it was an excuse, I said it was a cause. There is a Political Derangement Syndrome in this country on both sides. It is why we have this problem. So long as you have one group targeting another for any reason, then you will have these kinds of things ocuring. And you blithe attitude towards Hate Crimes conducted against Conservatives scares me. You should be angry with any and all who would commit hate crimes, regardless of their target.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/sarahpalin/3271128/Sarah-Palin-effigy-hung-by-noose-in-Halloween-display.html

Is canceled out by the effigy of Obama that was lynched.

http://www.local6.com/politics/17784129/detail.html

No proof as to motive, just another guy thinking ebil libruhl america is out to get him.

http://www.ohio.com/news/top_stories/30930849.html

Again, people arent out to get conservatives here. They were fighting.

http://www.zombietime.com/hall_of_shame/120-2044_IMG.JPG

Again, dead bear with an obama sign, assassination plots...

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obama-supporter-assaults-female-mccain-volunteer-in-new-york/


So you have one crazy.

http://www.katu.com/news/30847164.html

This happens every year, both sides vandalising opposng signs.

just pointing out a few instances

Which most of them are crap. Seriously, your arguement that poor conservatives are victims is pathetic. You have a few instances here that happened inrregularrally and can easially be mirrored by the same things being done BY conservatives.

You have no arguement. Your claim that beating homosexuals is retaliation for poor conservatives being victimized is bogus.

I never said that makes it okay. Hate Crimes of any kind are horrendus. I am just pointing out that it is a matter of one side lashing out against the other side and then that side striking back. And FYI, most conservatives don't like theocracies, we think that the Founding Fathers had it right when they limited government power, and most of us conservatives are also libertarians. But when people commit hate crimes against one group, that group retaliates, and it begins to escalate and make problems worse for both groups.



And that is why I put that in there, to show your own prejudices and hatred. Thank you for obliging me.


Except for the fact that I was making fun of your entire post and in no way do I think that conservatives or any other group belong to a hive mind. I also don't presume to make excuses for violent hateful idiots.

Overreporting?


Wait, you think that gays are making it up that theyre being targeted?


Why does this not suprise me?
You find no surprise because you've made up your own argument and answered it. I find no surprise that's the only kind of argument that you can answer...

Now, suppose that a group of people think that any crime against them is a hate crime. Or the group thinks that increased claims of hate crimes might help their cause. If they are tried in a sympathetic court, then the numbers are likely to be skewed. Substitute 'activist homosexuals' for 'group' and you might find a cause.

Alternatively, and this has nothing to do with over-reporting, homosexuals could just be more visible than previously... More are coming out of the closet.

I never said that makes it okay. Hate Crimes of any kind are horrendus. I am just pointing out that it is a matter of one side lashing out against the other side and then that side striking back.

Bull. Conservatives werent poor victims who were attacked first. Especially this election.


If you really believe this your insane.

I never said it was an excuse, I said it was a cause. There is a Political Derangement Syndrome in this country on both sides. It is why we have this problem. So long as you have one group targeting another for any reason, then you will have these kinds of things ocuring. And you blithe attitude towards Hate Crimes conducted against Conservatives scares me. You should be angry with any and all who would commit hate crimes, regardless of their target.

Which I am. You may have forgotten so I will remind you; You are the one coming in here suggesting that these are examples of revenge for what those on the left are doing. I was simply talking shit about such a point of view. Those damned liberals trying to make our country socialist and ban religion did it first! This is Just retaliation.

You find no surprise because you've made up your own argument and answered it. I find no surprise that's the only kind of argument that you can answer...


Cute.

Reread your earlier post. Its not hard to see how I drew the conclusion I did. Especially since it was made by, you know, you.

It's an election year, and one side is talking repeatedly about dividing the people of my country. Naturally, that will lead to some people getting far more "into the election" than usual. When you make some group an "other", those who are outside that "other" group tend to feel that it's okay to treat the "other" poorly.
Election year "Traditional Family Values" fervor being whipped up by McSame and Caribou Barbie?
Of course, you two have some sort of evidence to back this up right?

There at least would have been some sort of justification for leaping to those sorts of conclusions in 2004, but gay marriage isn't a major issue this time around.

Cute.

Reread your earlier post. Its not hard to see how I drew the conclusion I did. Especially since it was made by, you know, you.
And I see I was right. About you, anyway.

And I see I was right. About you, anyway.

Good for you Myrm. Its nice to be right once in a while. Heres your gold star. Keep up the good work.

I thought most crimes are hate induced never heard anyone say i love you now stickem up...

I thought most crimes are hate induced never heard anyone say i love you now stickem up...

:rolleyes:


And its already been explained, several times, why a "hate crime" is different.

You listed two completely different scenarios. What if the drunk guy had taken a swing at a black guy? What if someone took a swing at someone he thought was gay but really wasn't?

Exactly, because one is a normal Assault, motivated by a heated exchange and alcohol and the other was a hate crime motivated by racial hatred. If the first scenario occured between people of different ethnicities it wouldn't be a hate crime, because it wasn't motivated by hatred of a specific ethnicity.

Taking motive into account to alter the severity of a punishment is standard practice in the courtroom. Take the different degrees of murder, someone who actively planned the murder of another would get a harsher sentance than someone who killed someone in a spontaneous fight. Both of them are murders, taking someone elses' life, but the motives are different.

Is canceled out by the effigy of Obama that was lynched.



No proof as to motive, just another guy thinking ebil libruhl america is out to get him.



Again, people arent out to get conservatives here. They were fighting.



Again, dead bear with an obama sign, assassination plots...




So you have one crazy.



This happens every year, both sides vandalising opposng signs.



Which most of them are crap. Seriously, your arguement that poor conservatives are victims is pathetic. You have a few instances here that happened inrregularrally and can easially be mirrored by the same things being done BY conservatives.

You have no arguement. Your claim that beating homosexuals is retaliation for poor conservatives being victimized is bogus.

Did you pay attention to the RNC? During the convention, a group called the RNC Welcoming Committee was out there physically assaulting members of the nominating teams. Buses carrying them in where attacked and one person was actually dragged away and beaten until police came to his aid.

Then there are the Anti-Bush protests that occur all the time in DC.

http://www.greatdreams.com/political/bush-osama.jpg

http://www.greatdreams.com/political/bush-protesters.jpg

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/0bVl1TU5E2eWR/340x.jpg

http://bstein80.blogspot.com/2005/04/leftist-intolerance-conservative.html

http://www.diggersrealm.com/mt/archives/000785.html

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:f8Jh_vkqpM5C2M:http://jeestunautre.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/piss_christ_by_serrano_andres_1987.jpg

http://www.galaxgazette.com/cgi-bin/storyviewnew.cgi?055+News.20081027-2025-055-055007.Lead+News

There are hate crimes committed against conservatives. And thus, the loons on my side of the aisle strike back against those they think committed the hate crimes.

No hate crime is good, EVER. But if you have one group commit hate crimes against another, then the victimized group will lash out against those they perceived as committing the crimes.

Both sides are wrong in this, and all hate crimes need to be stopped. I am not going to defend those who commit hate crimes against anyone. But I am going to point out that hate crimes are conducted against all persons of all creeds, genders, orientations, ages, political leanings, economic status, etc.

There are hate crimes committed against conservatives. And thus, the loons on my side of the aisle strike back against those they think committed the hate crimes.

There you go again, pretending like them damn libruhls started it. This is what makes you impossible to take seriously.


Im not saying we have to pretend like conservatives started it (racists started it), but dont claim to be the retaliating victim.

There you go again, pretending like them damn libruhls started it.

I never said that your side started it. Hell, the KKK was a Conservative Democrat group (one of their former members is in Congress as a Democrat). The Conservative side of the aisle is FAR from clean on this matter, and we are doing our best to kick those who would commit hate crimes out of our political parties and into jail if we catch them acting on it.

However, there are some otherwise reasonable people who, if targeted with a hate crime will lash out at those who they think conducted it. Hell, if they see someone on the other side of the country get hit with a Hate Crime they may act.

I am merely pointing out that Hate Crimes are increasing on both sides, and that it is not surprising that there is some back and forth retaliation.

people only become fag and ****** bashers after the liberals ignite their hatred by attacking them first.

I never said that your side started it. Hell, the KKK was a Conservative Democrat group (one of their former members is in Congress as a Democrat). The Conservative side of the aisle is FAR from clean on this matter, and we are doing our best to kick those who would commit hate crimes out of our political parties and into jail if we catch them acting on it.

However, there are some otherwise reasonable people who, if targeted with a hate crime will lash out at those who they think conducted it. Hell, if they see someone on the other side of the country get hit with a Hate Crime they may act.

I am merely pointing out that Hate Crimes are increasing on both sides, and that it is not surprising that there is some back and forth retaliation.

There are reasonable people who would do that? In what sense are they reasonable?

If someone killed a white guy because he hated whitey, thatd be a hate crime as well (in theory).


Well, there's the negative duplicity of this problem, on one side, because at this time, that whites hold the [shrinking] racial majority in the world, any hate crimes committed upon us becuase of our race, are just put under the basic category of the crime (assault, murder, rape, theft, etc) because the racial laws that protect minorities from discrimination, also stop law enforcement from tagging the offender with anything race-based because the offender can simply preach that they are being picked on because they are a minority

And on the other side, as it is sadly heading that way quickly, that whites will soon be another minority, and its our turn to be where the other races were, we will get no special treatment for being a minority, because with the exception of a few pockets of sympathizers, the white race will be even more of a target of hatred because the other races outnumber us


and for the here and now, we have to deal with any of them committing hate crime on us that never get anywhere past the basic issue, yet if we do anything to them, they immediately play the race card and say that we did what we did because of their race and we get tagged for hate crimes

Ive seen it many times before, when Im out on patrol trying to enforce a bit of law as best as the laws actually let me, and a minority commits a crime, when i move in to do my job, and despite my personal politics, that I do my job in a text-book way without any open bias, alot of them start preaching that Im picking on them because of race.

Well, there's the negative duplicity of this problem, on one side, because at this time, that whites hold the [shrinking] racial majority in the world, any hate crimes committed upon us becuase of our race, are just put under the basic category of the crime (assault, murder, rape, theft, etc) because the racial laws that protect minorities from discrimination, also stop law enforcement from tagging the offender with anything race-based because the offender can simply preach that they are being picked on because they are a minority

And on the other side, as it is sadly heading that way quickly, that whites will soon be another minority, and its our turn to be where the other races were, we will get no special treatment for being a minority, because with the exception of a few pockets of sympathizers, the white race will be even more of a target of hatred because the other races outnumber us


and for the here and now, we have to deal with any of them committing hate crime on us that never get anywhere past the basic issue, yet if we do anything to them, they immediately play the race card and say that we did what we did because of their race and we get tagged for hate crimes

Ive seen it many times before, when Im out on patrol trying to enforce a bit of law as best as the laws actually let me, and a minority commits a crime, when i move in to do my job, and despite my personal politics, that I do my job in a text-book way without any open bias, alot of them start preaching that Im picking on them because of race.

Jetz ist die Zeit für Rache! Wir müssen die Juden abschaffen!

There are reasonable people who would do that? In what sense are they reasonable?

I said otherwise reasonable. People who are normal, reasonable people, but who will defend themselves if they think they are being targeted by groups that hate them because of their beliefs or orientation. These things happen. It is how civil wars start.

"When you are convinced that your neighbor is arming himself to kill you, that is when you will kill your neighbor."

Are there crazies? Of course. Look at that Jack@$$ over in Topeka, the head of the Westboro Baptist Church. Look at Jack Chick. Look at the people who lead the KKK. But some of the Hate Crimes are because you have people retaliating because they where struck first. This happens on BOTH sides of the aisle and need to be remembered by those on all sides of the political spectrum.

Well, there's the negative duplicity of this problem, on one side, because at this time, that whites hold the [shrinking] racial majority in the world, any hate crimes committed upon us becuase of our race, are just put under the basic category of the crime (assault, murder, rape, theft, etc) because the racial laws that protect minorities from discrimination, also stop law enforcement from tagging the offender with anything race-based because the offender can simply preach that they are being picked on because they are a minority

And on the other side, as it is sadly heading that way quickly, that whites will soon be another minority, and its our turn to be where the other races were, we will get no special treatment for being a minority, because with the exception of a few pockets of sympathizers, the white race will be even more of a target of hatred because the other races outnumber us


and for the here and now, we have to deal with any of them committing hate crime on us that never get anywhere past the basic issue, yet if we do anything to them, they immediately play the race card and say that we did what we did because of their race and we get tagged for hate crimes

Ive seen it many times before, when Im out on patrol trying to enforce a bit of law as best as the laws actually let me, and a minority commits a crime, when i move in to do my job, and despite my personal politics, that I do my job in a text-book way without any open bias, alot of them start preaching that Im picking on them because of race.

so then you would like proof of blacks getting charged with hate crimes against whites?

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/crimprof_blog/2007/01/black_children_.html

I said otherwise reasonable. People who are normal, reasonable people, but who will defend themselves if they think they are being targeted by groups that hate them because of their beliefs or orientation. These things happen. It is how civil wars start.

"When you are convinced that your neighbor is arming himself to kill you, that is when you will kill your neighbor."

Are there crazies? Of course. Look at that Jack@$$ over in Topeka, the head of the Westboro Baptist Church. Look at Jack Chick. Look at the people who lead the KKK. But some of the Hate Crimes are because you have people retaliating because they where struck first. This happens on BOTH sides of the aisle and need to be remembered by those on all sides of the political spectrum.

I don't think anyone here claimed it was done mainly by conservatives, or that anyone even mentioned political affiliation until you came in saying that maybe it's because of all those liberal attacks on conservatives and made it political.

If I am wrong, I apologize.

I used the expression "big bad gay man" as a figure of speech.

Although it probably is the big bad gay man that the fundies are really upset about.

No, they don't.

Equal is special :p

*snip*

Just a note here.

Protests - not hate crimes. In fact, not even a crime.
Saying mean things - not hate crimes. In fact, not even a crime.
Doing mean things to effigies - not a hate crime. And see above
Defacing signs - not hate crimes. But you've at least got a crime here.

Attacks on people specifically because of their ethnicity, creed, sexual orientation, etc.? Those are hate crimes.

Election year "Traditional Family Values" fervor being whipped up by McSame and Caribou Barbie?

You can label all of them 'McSame'. Could be right. I'd say its just more awareness of gays in general.

I think it's a good thing the number went up. I really doubt that violence against homosexuals has increased. I think reporting violence against homosexuals has increased and the fact they are getting reported more is a good thing.

I think it's a good thing the number went up. I really doubt that violence against homosexuals has increased. I think reporting violence against homosexuals has increased and the fact they are getting reported more is a good thing.

This ^

The annual "hate crime report" was often called the "big book of zeroes" because, while the FBI is supposed to compile these reports, there is no requirement for local law enforcement to be co-operative; so, in the areas where gay-bashing is most common, there are generally zero reports of it.

My problem is that minorities receive special protection under the law, not equal.

They do not.

You do realize that hate crime laws with respect to sexual orientation (as with respect to race, religion, etc.) apply to crimes targeting people of any sexual orientation?

Anyone else think the whole thought police view toward crime is a bit disturbing? A crime is a crime, no matter who the victim. I don't care about the motive as much as I care about the act. Besides, the fluctuations mentioned in the OP are almost insignificant, probably mostly within the margin of error for the survey taken. I wouldn't pay much attention to any variation under 10% due to the fickle nature of statistics.

Anyone else think the whole thought police view toward crime is a bit disturbing?

Do you always consider taking the motivation for a crime into account as "thought police"?

A crime is a crime, no matter who the victim.

Indeed, and hate crime legislation doesn't change this.

I don't care about the motive as much as I care about the act.

Hence the reason that the motive only comes into play when deciding how lenient or harsh the actual sentence will be.

There's a range of possible sentences for, say, assault. All sorts of things will determine exactly what sentence is used in a given case - motive being a possible factor in that decision.

Just a note here.

Protests - not hate crimes. In fact, not even a crime.
Saying mean things - not hate crimes. In fact, not even a crime.
Doing mean things to effigies - not a hate crime. And see above
Defacing signs - not hate crimes. But you've at least got a crime here.

Attacks on people specifically because of their ethnicity, creed, sexual orientation, etc.? Those are hate crimes.

Thank you. I had intended to address this when I got home, but you beat me to it.

Before I answer some of the more ignorant and/or objectionable posts in this thread, let me repeat my standard primer on hate crime legislation in the United States.

Hate crime legislation -- other than establishing data collection and research -- merely provides for additional punishment for crimes based on intent.

In the case of federal law, Section 280003 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 merely provided for a sentence enhancement based on a hate crime intent.

That is codified in the Federal Sentencing Guidelines as follows:

§3A1.1. Hate Crime Motivation or Vulnerable Victim

(a) If the finder of fact at trial or, in the case of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, the court at sentencing determines beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intentionally selected any victim or any property as the object of the offense of conviction because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person, increase by 3 levels.

(b)(1) If the defendant knew or should have known that a victim of the offense was a vulnerable victim, increase by 2 levels.

(2) If (A) subdivision (1) applies; and (B) the offense involved a large number of vulnerable victims, increase the offense level determined under subdivision (1) by 2 additional levels.

(c) Special Instruction

(1) Subsection (a) shall not apply if an adjustment from §2H1.1(b)(1) applies.

Commentary

Application Notes:

1. Subsection (a) applies to offenses that are hate crimes. Note that special evidentiary requirements govern the application of this subsection.

Do not apply subsection (a) on the basis of gender in the case of a sexual offense. In such cases, this factor is taken into account by the offense level of the Chapter Two offense guideline. Moreover, do not apply subsection (a) if an adjustment from §2H1.1(b)(1) applies.

2. For purposes of subsection (b), "vulnerable victim" means a person (A) who is a victim of the offense of conviction and any conduct for which the defendant is accountable under §1B1.3 (Relevant Conduct); and (B) who is unusually vulnerable due to age, physical or mental condition, or who is otherwise particularly susceptible to the criminal conduct.

Subsection (b) applies to offenses involving an unusually vulnerable victim in which the defendant knows or should have known of the victim’s unusual vulnerability. The adjustment would apply, for example, in a fraud case in which the defendant marketed an ineffective cancer cure or in a robbery in which the defendant selected a handicapped victim. But it would not apply in a case in which the defendant sold fraudulent securities by mail to the general public and one of the victims happened to be senile. Similarly, for example, a bank teller is not an unusually vulnerable victim solely by virtue of the teller’s position in a bank.

Do not apply subsection (b) if the factor that makes the person a vulnerable victim is incorporated in the offense guideline. For example, if the offense guideline provides an enhancement for the age of the victim, this subsection would not be applied unless the victim was unusually vulnerable for reasons unrelated to age.

3. The adjustments from subsections (a) and (b) are to be applied cumulatively. Do not, however, apply subsection (b) in a case in which subsection (a) applies unless a victim of the offense was unusually vulnerable for reasons unrelated to race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation.

4. If an enhancement from subsection (b) applies and the defendant’s criminal history includes a prior sentence for an offense that involved the selection of a vulnerable victim, an upward departure may be warranted.

If you are familiar with the Sentencing Guidelines, then you know that sentencing enhancements are provided based on a very wide range of criteria -- including all sorts of things related to intent or motive.

The DoJ's National Criminal Justice Reference Service links to this site (http://www.adl.org/99hatecrime/intro.asp) for further explanation of hate crime legislation.

The law often recognizes motive or intent as an element of a crime or a basis for sentencing. Hate crime legislation is no more "thought crime" than the difference between first degree murder and manslaughter.

The Supreme Court addressed this issue in Wisconsin v. Mitchell (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/508/476.html ) (92-515), 508 US 47 (1993). I find the majority opinion persuasive. Obviously others are free to disagree.

Traditionally, sentencing judges have considered a wide variety of factors in addition to evidence bearing on guilt in determining what sentence to impose on a convicted defendant. See Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808 820-821 (1991); United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443, 446 (1972); Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241, 246 (1949). The defendant's motive for committing the offense is one important factor. See 1 W. LeFave & A. Scott, Substantive Criminal Law 3.6(b), p. 324 (1986) ("Motives are most relevant when the trial judge sets the defendant's sentence, and it is not uncommon for a defendant to receive a minimum sentence because he was acting with good motives, or a rather high sentence because of his bad motives"); cf. Tison v. Arizona, 481 U.S. 137, 156 (1987) ("Deeply ingrained in our legal tradition is the idea that the more purposeful is the criminal conduct, the more serious is the offense, and, therefore, the more severely it ought to be punished"). Thus, in many States, the commission of a murder or other capital offense for pecuniary gain is a separate aggravating circumstance under the capital sentencing statute. See, e.g., Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. 13-703(F)(5) (1989); Fla.Stat. 921.141(5)(f) (Supp. 1992); Miss.Code Ann. 99-19-101(5)(f) (Supp. 1992); N.C.Gen.Stat. 15A-2000(e)(6) (1992); Wyo.Stat. 6-2-102(h)(vi) (Supp. 1992).

... Thus, in Barclay v. Florida, 463 U.S. 939 (1983) (plurality opinion), we allowed the sentencing judge to take into account the defendant's racial animus towards his victim. The evidence in that case showed that the defendant's membership in the Black Liberation Army and desire to provoke a "race war" were related to the murder of a white man for which he was convicted. See id. at 942-944. Because "the elements of racial hatred in [the] murder" were relevant to several aggravating factors, we held that the trial judge permissibly took this evidence into account in sentencing the defendant to death. Id. at 949, and n. 7.

I'll try to avoid the subtleties of each supposed scenario. They are numerous and we could go on forever. My problem is that minorities receive special protection under the law, not equal. And it's because of that, I feel, that it will take much, much longer for those minorities to be truly accepted by the majority.

Though honestly, it's sad that the majority just can't accept differences when presented. Fear is a big stinker.

Your continued confusion of neutral laws that protect everyone equally with "special protections" for minorities is getting particularly annoying. I'm not sure whether you are just ignorant or being deliberately obtuse.

Check the FBI hate crime statistics (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2007/victims.htm) and you'll see that crimes motivated by hatred of whites, males, heterosexuals, Christians, etc. are treated the same as crimes motivated by hatred of any race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity/national origin, and disability.

Did you pay attention to the RNC? During the convention, a group called the RNC Welcoming Committee was out there physically assaulting members of the nominating teams. Buses carrying them in where attacked and one person was actually dragged away and beaten until police came to his aid.

Then there are the Anti-Bush protests that occur all the time in DC.

http://www.greatdreams.com/political/bush-osama.jpg

http://www.greatdreams.com/political/bush-protesters.jpg

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/0bVl1TU5E2eWR/340x.jpg

http://bstein80.blogspot.com/2005/04/leftist-intolerance-conservative.html

http://www.diggersrealm.com/mt/archives/000785.html

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:f8Jh_vkqpM5C2M:http://jeestunautre.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/piss_christ_by_serrano_andres_1987.jpg

http://www.galaxgazette.com/cgi-bin/storyviewnew.cgi?055+News.20081027-2025-055-055007.Lead+News

There are hate crimes committed against conservatives. And thus, the loons on my side of the aisle strike back against those they think committed the hate crimes.

No hate crime is good, EVER. But if you have one group commit hate crimes against another, then the victimized group will lash out against those they perceived as committing the crimes.

Both sides are wrong in this, and all hate crimes need to be stopped. I am not going to defend those who commit hate crimes against anyone. But I am going to point out that hate crimes are conducted against all persons of all creeds, genders, orientations, ages, political leanings, economic status, etc.

You appear to be confusing any evidence of dislike for conservatives with commission of an actual hate crime.

You also appear to have created a bizarre dichotomy between "conservatives" and everyone else, whereby any hate crime committed against a non-conservative can be thought off as "retaliation" for a hate-crime against a conservative.

You are right that anyone can be a victim of a hate crime. But the FBI statistics (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2007/victims.htm) make clear that are overwhelming committed against minorities.

Well, there's the negative duplicity of this problem, on one side, because at this time, that whites hold the [shrinking] racial majority in the world, any hate crimes committed upon us becuase of our race, are just put under the basic category of the crime (assault, murder, rape, theft, etc) because the racial laws that protect minorities from discrimination, also stop law enforcement from tagging the offender with anything race-based because the offender can simply preach that they are being picked on because they are a minority

And on the other side, as it is sadly heading that way quickly, that whites will soon be another minority, and its our turn to be where the other races were, we will get no special treatment for being a minority, because with the exception of a few pockets of sympathizers, the white race will be even more of a target of hatred because the other races outnumber us

and for the here and now, we have to deal with any of them committing hate crime on us that never get anywhere past the basic issue, yet if we do anything to them, they immediately play the race card and say that we did what we did because of their race and we get tagged for hate crimes

Ive seen it many times before, when Im out on patrol trying to enforce a bit of law as best as the laws actually let me, and a minority commits a crime, when i move in to do my job, and despite my personal politics, that I do my job in a text-book way without any open bias, alot of them start preaching that Im picking on them because of race.

First of all, it is fucking scary that you are in law enforcement and have such an ill-informed view of hate crimes and race relations. I am glad that you try to put your "personal politics" aside and enforce the law neutrally -- BUT THAT IS YOUR JOB.

Second, as my earlier post should have made clear, hate crime laws protect everyone equally. They don't just protect minorities. And it is far from unheard of for a minority member to be charged with/convicted of a hate crime.

Anyone else think the whole thought police view toward crime is a bit disturbing? A crime is a crime, no matter who the victim. I don't care about the motive as much as I care about the act.

Again, this is just silly. Do you object to the fact that almost all crimes require both a guilty act and a criminal intent?

to protect Gays we must kill Jews *nod*

Excuse me? This has nothing to do with why people hate gays. You have no evidence to back that up, and you wouldn't be able to cause there is none. And this is why people are hating not just gays, but other minorities too. Anyone who is a white christian hates everyone else cause they're different. Maybe you should get a little culture to know real reasons instead of saying something that makes you sound like a dumbass.

So, fun little hate crime bit. Anyone have any ideas why gays are targeted more now? The Asian and Latino bit is explained, but how do homosexuals fit into this?

In medicine, there's a theory called, "true, true, and unrelated." Honestly, it's true that hate crime against homosexuals may be on the rise, but is it a legitimate increase in hatred (I find it unlikely--if anything, the country is getting more liberal, not less), or is it just a coincidence?

Do you always consider taking the motivation for a crime into account as "thought police"?

Yes, when a crime against a member of a group is automatically assumed to be hate crime


Hence the reason that the motive only comes into play when deciding how lenient or harsh the actual sentence will be.

a premeditated murder is a premeditated murder. A crime of passion is a crime of passion. The punishment should not be different based on who the victim or agressor was, or what their opinions are. It'a about equality under the law. It's sounding like the different punishments of medaevi9l times depending on whether the agressor or victim belonged to the aristocracy or the serf class. As soon as any group recieves any special recognition in criminal law, there is a potential for abuse.

There's a range of possible sentences for, say, assault. All sorts of things will determine exactly what sentence is used in a given case - motive being a possible factor in that decision.

But the automatic assumption that a minority or homosexual was targeted due to their appearance or preference is dangerous ground to tread. There is a place for motive, but I think it's too easy to assume the wrong motive if hate crime laws are the main criteria for determining punishment. All crimes against other people are based in hatred. To say that there is more hatred in a certaion crime is absurd. Now, if the crime involved kidnapping + torture + premeditated murder, there should be a cumulative effect for the crimes. I'm not arguing that. My only argument is that hate crime laws presume to know the mental state of a criminal when it may not have been the case that the crime was motivated my racism or whatever else may be the hate crime charge.

I blame the Jews.

Yes, we Jews came up with an elaborate plot to wipe gay people off the face of the planet... We're also responsible for 9/11! We figured we'd blow up the World Trade Center, kill lots of gay people in the process, and have America attack our enemies in the middle east, do the dirty work for us...

Huzzah for the global Jewish conspiracy!

Yes, we Jews came up with an elaborate plot to wipe gay people off the face of the planet... We're also responsible for 9/11! We figured we'd blow up the World Trade Center, kill lots of gay people in the process, and have America attack our enemies in the middle east, do the dirty work for us...

Huzzah for the global Jewish conspiracy!

Don't try to take credit for something you didn't do. I know if this had been a Jew handiwork the Muslim victims should have outnumbered the Gays, so there!

:tongue:

Yes, when a crime against a member of a group is automatically assumed to be hate crime
Quite the contrary. It is incredibly difficult to persuade police or prosecutors of such a thing even when the expressions of hatred are quite blatant.

hopefully this just means that gays are less shy about reporting hate crimes.

There should be long jail sentences for homophobic hate crime. Pass the soap?

Don't try to take credit for something you didn't do. I know if this had been a Jew handiwork the number of Muslim victims should have outnumbered the Gays, so there!

:tongue:

The Jews versus Arabs thing is all part of the plot... It makes people look over us... "Oh, the Jews couldn't have done it, they're too busy with the Muslims!"

In reality, my friend, it's all just gearing up for the final solution to the gay question... Wow, that sounds familliar from somewhere..

In all seriousness, though, there is a conspiracy out there saying that Mossad (Israeli CIA) helped arrange for the 9/11 attacks to happen to try and get America to attack Israel's enemies in the Middle East... It's amazing what people draw up when they have way too much time on their hands.

Yes, when a crime against a member of a group is automatically assumed to be hate crime

a premeditated murder is a premeditated murder. A crime of passion is a crime of passion. The punishment should not be different based on who the victim or agressor was, or what their opinions are. It'a about equality under the law. It's sounding like the different punishments of medaevi9l times depending on whether the agressor or victim belonged to the aristocracy or the serf class. As soon as any group recieves any special recognition in criminal law, there is a potential for abuse.

But the automatic assumption that a minority or homosexual was targeted due to their appearance or preference is dangerous ground to tread. There is a place for motive, but I think it's too easy to assume the wrong motive if hate crime laws are the main criteria for determining punishment. All crimes against other people are based in hatred. To say that there is more hatred in a certaion crime is absurd. Now, if the crime involved kidnapping + torture + premeditated murder, there should be a cumulative effect for the crimes. I'm not arguing that. My only argument is that hate crime laws presume to know the mental state of a criminal when it may not have been the case that the crime was motivated my racism or whatever else may be the hate crime charge.

It's a good thing that what you claim to be hate crime laws aren't even close to reality then. Crimes against minorities are not "automatically assumed to be hate crimes." No particular group is given special preference or protection -- white, male, Christians are protected just the same as black Jewish lesbians.

And did you notice that the mental state has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt or the hate crime enhancement doesn't apply? That is actually usually very difficult to establish.

Quite the contrary. It is incredibly difficult to persuade police or prosecutors of such a thing even when the expressions of hatred are quite blatant.

Shhh. Don't confuse them with facts.

Yes, when a crime against a member of a group is automatically assumed to be hate crime

Luckily, it isn't.

a premeditated murder is a premeditated murder. A crime of passion is a crime of passion. The punishment should not be different based on who the victim or agressor was, or what their opinions are.

But it can be different based on the motivation for the crime. A person who plans a murder for money may get a different sentence than one who plans it because the person in question harmed them. It's still premeditated murder, but one of those people is more dangerous to society than the other.

It'a about equality under the law. It's sounding like the different punishments of medaevi9l times depending on whether the agressor or victim belonged to the aristocracy or the serf class. As soon as any group recieves any special recognition in criminal law, there is a potential for abuse.

Luckily, no group is receiving unequal treatment here. No group is being treated as "special".

But the automatic assumption that a minority or homosexual was targeted due to their appearance or preference is dangerous ground to tread.

Luckily, there is no such "automatic assumption". The burden of proof needed to label something a hate crime is actually quite high.

people are scared of change, think about what happend when slaves were freed and given equal rights as american citizens

and homosexuality is strange i know and is against most religions (so Ive heard) but my veiw is:
i have no problem with it just dont be gay in public act like a normal man/woman couple (or even old back some in public the less pda the better)

but GAY PALIGAMY that crosses the line and they deserve all the hate crime the gewt (joke of course)

drunk posting?

maybe there should be laws against gays holding hands in public.