The Republicans have them:
House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) and House GOP Conference Chairman Mike Pence (R-Ind.) are voting against the House/Senate fiscal year 2010 defense authorization bill — because it contains hate crimes provisions designed to protect gays and lesbians.
Boehner, speaking at his weekly press conference Thursday, said the inclusion of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act in the defense bill was “an abuse of power” by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that sought to punish offenders for what they thought — and not what they did.
In other words, they hate gays more than they love the troops, and you know how much they say they love the troops.
You all really need to watch the HBO documentary Outrage.
Tonal Crow
You mean the GOP’s voting against the troops in wartime? Who’da thunk it?
Notorious P.A.T.
“I’m against punishing people for what they think” said Boehner. “Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have to go to church to worship a god who punishes people for what they think”.
SenyorDave
Maybe some group (Moveon?) might start putting together some ads showing how much the GOP hates:
America (votes against defense funding during time of war)
Women (pro-rape, as evidenced by 30 of 40 GOP senators voting against the Franken bill)
Lyle4
I’m really not a fan of when these people attach all sorts of random legislations to these appropriations bills though, no matter who does it.
Choosing between more body armor or hate crimes? Why do they have to be together?
dmsilev
So the GOP Senate voted in favor of letting contractors covering up for rapists go free, and the GOP House opposes funding for the troops because they don’t have a problem with people beating up on gay people.
One wonders what the reconciled bill will look like; maybe something which allows contractors to beat up and rape gay men?
-dms
Violet
OT – Don’t forget to vote for Little Bitsy. She needs all the help she can get and she’s got a long way to go to get over 2000 votes.
@SenyorDave:
This would be an excellent idea, although I don’t think MoveOn would be the right one to do it. Can we just get Grayson to point it out? That would go a lot further than some MoveOn ad.
gbear
@Lyle4:
…because it’s such a hard choice between the two.
gonzone
Terrorist sympathizers!
And in more ways than one.
ellaesther
@Violet: O.M.G! I was just going to say that! Swear to FSM! I had just impressed myself by remembering to vote her so I ran over here to go all OT in order to exhort others to do the same…! Here’s the link folks: Go Little Bitsy!
And oh yes, the topic! I knew that the GOP hated gays more than they loved our troops when they decided it was more important to kick 13,000 (three and a half battle brigades’ worth!) of them out of the military rather than allow them to their job of serving alongside other soldiers in need of their support. Clearly, national security has got to take a fucking back seat to the bigotry and fears of the Christian right! Not that I’m enraged by this. Or anything.
Bubblegum Tate
Who knew John Boehner was such a simmering cesspool of hatred of Murica?
Fwiffo
If they can get hate crimes added to the defense authorization bill, what’s keeping them from repealing DADT?
freelancer
To Paraphrase Jon Stewart from a few years back:
The only thing worse than a terrorist attack is a gay soldier stopping it.
gwangung
@Fwiffo: Test case? Opening gambit?
Brick Oven Bill
The 14th Amendment is bad and will stain President Lincoln’s legacy. This is too bad because President Lincoln was a highly intelligent and honorable man, and most surely would not have supported the passing of this flawed Amendment.
But the 14th does include the Equal Protection Clause, and therefore all hate crimes legislation, as well as affirmative action, and other racial spoils programs, are unconstitutional.
Furthermore, this is just more stupid politics. What does being nice to gay people have to do with funding the military? If the government is going to force us to be nice to gay people, why not do it with separate legislation?
We should repeal all but the first 10 Amendments, and then set the 11th Amendment to be that no legislation can be longer than ten pages in length. This way, even Conyers might be able to read and understand it. Then we should amend the other Amendments with the benefit of hindsight.
Warren Terra
For the record, I think voting against a defense funding bill that will pass anyway because you don’t like parts of the bill is just fine and does not mean you wish the troops to suffer. But many Republicans attacked Democrats for precisely that sort of behavior, claiming that the votes meant they didn’t support the troops – and such hypocrites deserve to be exposed.
Also, although I’m fine in principle with people opposing a defense bill because of some part of it, it can be very revealing what those parts are. As John makes clear with his post title, in this case the problem is that the bill is too nice to teh gheys. Not the most lovely of reasons.
Warren Terra
@ B.O.B.
Can we please give this vile hateful nonsense-spewing troll another week off?
Zifnab
Now, I’m not going to run off into ignorantville and suggest that Boehner or Pence are die-hard gay rights enthusiasts who just have a deep partisan streak. But get real. They were going to vote against this bill because they’re partisan douchebags. That Pelosi included the gay rights provision makes the job easier. But it wasn’t going to be so difficult that they wouldn’t be able to vote against the bill for some other absurd reason.
The Republicans want to go down with as big a partisan divide as possible. I have no idea why. But they’ve been bending over backwards to embrace every asinine right-wing plank they can get their hands on, if it means voting in opposition.
Notorious P.A.T.
Doesn’t sound random to me. How is a gay soldier supposed to do his job if he’s surrouned by prejudice and discrimination?
Mark S.
@Brick Oven Bill:
Great ideas as always, BOB. Finally, slavery will once again be as the Framers intended it, a states rights issue. And I like the ten page limit on legislation: if you can’t finish it while sitting on the toilet, it’s probably not a good law after all.
One quibble, though. Lincoln was kind of dead when the 14th Amendment was passed.
Laura W
@Violet:
@ellaesther:
Thanks! Now remember, 2,000 means nothing except 2,000.
Lucy Super Pound Puppy, who came in 2nd last week (to Mozart’s 4500 votes), is 2,000 votes AHEAD of Bitsy! So maybe Lucy takes week 10, and thanks to (attrition and) our perseverance Bitsy finally manages to claim her week in 11 or 12?
Breaking Bitsy News: There is a great piece on her on the Asheville Citizen-Times web site, AND we just learned it will publish in this Sunday’s paper edition. A great way for her to start week 11!
Press on Juicer Nation! Fight the Good Dog Fight!
Midnight Marauder
And that is the exact way that Democrats need to hammer Republicans over this.
Also:
@Notorious P.A.T.:
Uber-win.
kommrade reproductive vigor
Uh yeah. Would be nice if a Dem stepped up to Orangina and forced him to explain how and when a thought is the same as (for example) throwing a rock through someone’s window or beating them up.
@freelancer: See Turing, Alan.
gocart mozart
B.O.B. has just jumped a whole school of sharks. Now he is pro-slavery and anti- womens suffrage. I think he likes being an asshole just to get attention.
ellaesther
@freelancer: Oh, that is so much win. Thank you for reminding me!
Midnight Marauder
@Lyle4:
Why do Republicans have to be petulant little WATB and hate the gays so much?
Zifnab
@Lyle4:
I’m really not a fan of Tom Coburn’s standing hold on every bill that floats up to the Senate. I’m really not a fan of the committee process that lets a couple of Blue Dogs or Conservacrats hold health care hostage for months at a time because their corporate sponsors want to milk a few hundred million dollars extra out of the US Taxpayer. I really don’t appreciate that Congress can force the Pentagon to keep buying airplanes that the Secretary of Defense says we don’t need. And the filibuster is striking me as a dumb rule every day I see it abused by Republicans and neglected by Democrats.
But that’s how Congress works.
I don’t care how Pelosi passes good legislation. After the Tom DeLay decade, the nuances of parlimentary procedure have lost their charms.
Laura W
@ellaesther: @Violet:
Dog knows why but my longer post is in dog jail for now. Point was, the #2 dog from last week is 2,000 votes ahead of Bitsy right now. Maybe Bitsy takes week 11 or 12 once Lucy gets her week? Voting daily is imperative.
Breaking Bitsy News: There is a great piece on her on the Asheville Citizen-Times web site, AND we just learned it will publish in this Sunday’s paper edition. A great way for her to start week 11!
Press on Juicer Nation! Fight the Good Dog Fight!
robertdsc
Buncha fuckin’ animals, those GOPers are.
gocart mozart
Or we can require all legislation to be in the form of stick figure crayon drawings so that even B.O.B. can understand it.
gwangung
@gocart mozart:
Albeit after a lot of work.
SpotWeld
Wouldn’t be easier to just *tell* BOB that the 14th amendment has been repealed.. and then just send him to Utah or something.
J.A.F. Rusty Shackleford
@Brick Oven Bill:
OK, you have to be a spoof. How long did that line crack you up?
Seanly
@Brick Oven Bill:
You are an idiot galore. I know I’m feeding the troll, but WTF?
Anti-discrimination laws do not mean that you have to be nice to gay people, just as the ERA did not mean that men and women would have to use one public restroom.
Zifnab
How will we know if the legislation is ten pages long? Who can even count that high?
Violet
@Laura W:
Oh, that’s a GREAT article! How wonderful that the dog rescue is getting some press. I hope it helps Little Bitsy get over the top.
I can’t believe how the other dogs have so many votes. Their networks must be huge.
Zifnab
@J.A.F. Rusty Shackleford: I liked the future tense. Because, you know, after 130 years of a law being on the books there’s a real worry that it might impact your legacy at some future date.
gex
“In other words, they hate gays more than they love the troops”
And this is news to who?
They don’t really love the troops, except for where loving the troops makes them feel good about themselves and their ideology. Actually loving the troops means the troops would have, oh, SOCKS.
Those tiny, shriveled hearts that are “full of Jesus” don’t have much room for the concept of love.
gex
@Lyle4: Without this rider style of legislation, no legislation would be passed. This is how compromise, coalitions, and votes are obtained. I agree that it seems suboptimal and not really rational, but changing this would probably require throwing out the whole system and starting from scratch.
mike in dc
Gee, GOPers, hasn’t the horse already left the barn with respect to punishing people differently based on their intent?
General intent/specific intent–common law crim code staples
knowingly/purposely/recklessly/negligently–model penal code staples
hate crimes are a pretty natural fit into that continuum.
gex
@Fwiffo: Obama style bipartisanship.
Bootlegger
@Lyle4: I agree, though it is an ancient tactic, probably first used by Cain against Abel when telling mom.
It is the height of irony however.
gocart mozart
Hate crime laws are no more like thought crime than laws against murder or larceny. You have to “INTEND” to kill or steal for it to be murder or theft. Hate crimes are simply crimes with an added element of specific intent. Harder to prove but with additional penalties. John Boehner is full of shit. B.O.B. also.
Bootlegger
@Brick Oven Bill:
Damned straight!! That 2nd Amendments has been misconstrued for too long to give every moron the Right to own the most lethal weapons we have.
gocart mozart
@mike in dc:
Mike you beat me to it.
General Winfield Stuck
Nope. They love the troops less than they love the wetsuit but way less than they hate gays. Or, how many wingnuts can you fit into your mid sized Clown Car.
gex
Geez. The Goopers never seem to complain about the fact that one of the groups most often protected by hate crimes legislation is the religious. If they are so opposed to hate crimes legislation, good Christians that are targeted for their beliefs should not be protected by this kind of legislation either. Repeal it all or add the gays. Let them pick.
Bootlegger
@gocart mozart: I don’t disagree with this, but what is the point of the punishment enhancement? Deterrence? Hardly. The Hammerskins aren’t deterred by a few extra years on the sentence. Incapacitation? Maybe. Lock the supremacists up for a few years longer. Otherwise we’re talking straight-up retribution. Let’s just be clear on that.
gocart mozart
@Bootlegger:
Deterrence/Retribution? This is different from any other law how exactly? Also, what is a Hammerskin?
geg6
John, I watched Outrage last evening. Really good stuff. I also recommend Brick City on Sundance, a miniseries about Newark and Corey Booker and his administration and the people there. Great stuff and a very impressive mayor. And since everyone responding to BoB let’s me know what he has said despite the pie filter, I’d just like to reiterate that he’s always been a racist, misogynist asshole, so it doesn’t surprise me that he longs for the days of the enslavement of black people or when women were mere chattel. It makes him feel like a man. Pitiful, isn’t it?
Makewi
Why is it worse to commit a crime against a member of one specified group than against another? How does this serve to make us equal under the law, and does it act in a way that integrates rather than separates? Given the realities of the plea bargaining system today, does this merely give prosecutors another instrument to help force guilty pleas?
These questions are not unimportant, and contemplating them does not make one a hater.
geg6
Okay, I’m stuck in moderation again. Can we not swear any more? Is that the problem?
Warren Terra
Oh, dear.
This is off topic, but it is relevant to the House Republicans, and to the military. Stealing an entire two sentence post from the front page of TPM:
And from the linked post:
I thought Democrats loved bicycles?
gwangung
@Makewi:
Speaking to us from 1964….
Midnight Marauder
@Makewi:
Yes, because gays, lesbians, and transgenders are considered such equals to everyone else under current laws. We’ve really done a great job as a society in terms of integrating them into institutions such as the armed forces and marriage.
soonergrunt
@48 Gocart Motzart–
Hammerskins are a white supremacist group, formed in 1988 in Dallas, TX.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hammerskins
Blue Raven
@Bootlegger:
Oh, so breaking the social contract of “be excellent to each other regardless of a difference in legal condition” should have no penalties for doing so because of the difference? Funny, contract breaking has penalties in other areas…
General Winfield Stuck
@Makewi:
I see you’ve stumbled onto the concept of obligatory troll protection. Too bad it has limited benefit for actual trolls.
Maybe, maybe not. It does however, or should give pause to haters acting out their hate. But why call it hate crime when the usually the motive is as much to strike terror into the hated group than anything else.
gocart mozart
@Bootlegger:
Society has determined that crimes motivated by hatred of race, sex, religion and now sexual orientation should be punished a little more severely. Reasonable people can agree or disagree as to whether that should be the case but it is not unreasonable for society to make that determination. The problem is that Boener and other Republicans continuously lie about hate crime laws. Should spray painting a swastika on a synagogue be punished the same as spray painting “Class of 2009 RULES!” outside a WallMart?
Chad N Freude
@kommrade reproductive vigor: Excellent! I had never thought about the effect that prohibiting gay people from participating in national defense would have had on WWII.
“It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma”
— Winston Churchill
Makewi
@Midnight Marauder:
So, you are saying that because they are restricted from certain institutions (e.g. armed forces, and marriage) that they should be considered a seperate class of citizen under the law and in need of extra protections. In a way, similar to children.
An interesting argument, but would it then follow that if military situation changed and you lived in a state with gay marriage rights, that you would lose the special protection under the law?
asiangrrlMN
I am ambivalent on hate crime laws, but I would like to say it’s not about one kind of crime being worse than another. I see hate crime laws as trying to prevent a systematic terrorizing of a group of people as difficult as that may be. It won’t change attitudes, laws never do, but it might give some people pause before, say, beating up the queer person just because the person is queer.
Hell. I am not explaining it very coherently, and I apologize for that.
@gex: You made my point exactly. This kind of bill would never be passed on its own, so it has to be attached to a bigger bill in order to have a prayer of passing.
@Zifnab:
Yep. This, too. It’s my standard response to people saying they don’t want their money to go to A, B, C, or D. I say I don’t want it to go to defense, but I accept that as part of the process. It’s the same here.
The Grand Panjandrum
Every time Republicans start posturing about the DOD authorization bill they need to be reminded what the President from their party did to our military. They are the ones paying the disproportionate price for an completely unnecessary war. I hope this little girl gets to see her dad again.
anonevent
What we really need to do is stop calling them hate crimes and call them by their real name: Terrorism. These acts are being done to intimidate a group, either blacks, gays, women, or the entire country. Charge these perpetrators the same way we would charge a bomber.
Makewi
@General Winfield Stuck:
Proving motive can be extraordinarily difficult. If a person can be proven to have said disparaging things against a specified group at some point in his/her life and then later is in a fight with a member of that group, does that constitute a hate crime?
Aren’t there already laws on the books regarding terroristic acts? From my understanding hate crime laws are merely sentencing enhancements for crimes that already exists.
Chad N Freude
@Makewi: No, it is because some characteristic of a group has been the sole reason for violent crimes against members of the group with sufficient frequency that attaching special or increased penalties to such crimes is warranted.
Makewi
@anonevent:
Aren’t there already crimes on the books against terroristic acts? So burning a cross, or spray painting a swastika on a synagogue would already be considered acts of terror under that law.
anonevent
@The Grand Panjandrum: How long until Malkin starts screaming about how these pictures are fake since the girl in the top picture isn’t wearing the same clothes she is in the bottom ones?
gocart mozart
@Makewi:
Like unpopular religions? For God’s sake, don’t forget to include the religious people Makewi.
gocart mozart
B.O.B. disappears and then Makewi shows up. Interesting.
Midnight Marauder
@Makewi:
No. What I am saying, foremost, is spare me the protestations about “How does this serve to make us equal under the law?” It’s more in line with what gocart mozart stated:
More importantly, being protected under hate crime laws does not all of a sudden make GLBT individuals “a separate class.” It does make them a protected class, which I feel is especially pertinent given the history of members of said group being specifically targeted for intimidation, violence, and far, far more heinous actions. Moreover, I would argue that with the way our country is currently structured, GLBT individuals are a de facto, very intentional “separate class.” Hate crime laws merely recognize that they are a vulnerable minority, and seek to protect them accordingly.
And “similar to children”? Spare me.
No, you would not lose hate crime protection when DADT and DOMA are eventually repealled. Just because you are recognized as no longer being a second or third class citizen by your government, doesn’t mean that you magically lose the need to be a protected class.
I would think the well-documented history of blacks in this country being continuously denided their legally guaranteed rights (to vote, to eat wherever, to marry whomever, to not have a lynch mob kick in their door in the middle of the night and murder their family–with the state’s winking approval) would be more than enough evidence of why one does not eliminate the need for the other.
Makewi
@Chad N Freude:
Under that theory then assault or murder of a police officer should be considered a hate crime. Is rape a hate crime?
Is the attempt to reduce the amount of the crime? Isn’t this same argument rejected when it comes to capital punishment?
Makewi
@gocart mozart:
Feel free to use whatever example you believe should fit. In any case, it isn’t my argument.
Comrade Kevin
@Makewi: There are already enhanced punishments in the law for the murder or assault of a peace officer.
anonevent
@Makewi: I’m just saying abolish the term “hate crime” and start legally calling them what they are.
Mark S.
@Makewi:
The law doesn’t protect gay people per se because that would violate Equal Protection. It protects victims of crime that were perpetrated with an animus toward sexual orientation. If there were a gay vigilante group targeting heterosexuals, they could be prosecuted under this law*.
* With caveats. From my understanding, the Feds can only get involved if local law enforcement requests it or if local law enforcement isn’t doing anything. It also only covers violent acts, so all this bullshit about thought crimes is just that, bullshit.
Tonal Crow
@asiangrrlMN:
Exactly. These laws address the elevated likelihood that members of some groups will be violently victimized, and the fear and loss of freedom that they experience in consequence. If (I hope, when) bias-motivated crime becomes background noise, hate-crimes laws will no longer be necessary, and we can repeal them.
Da Bomb
Maybe Orange Glo Man and his ilk are afraid that Teh Gays will be able to easily access guns and other nuclear weapons. You know cause payback for oppression is a bitch.
At least that’s what goes on in their little pea sized brains.
Mark S.
I have no idea why the 2nd paragraph of my comment is bolded. Do asterisks have something to do with it?
General Winfield Stuck
@Makewi:
I’m not a fan of loosely written hate crimes statutes, because it is fraught with ambiguity and subjective interpretations. Though I don’t have a problem with stiffer sentences for crimes that are clearly directed at ethnic, racial or any well defined group of persons. It is all about how these laws are laid out in detail and definition. And I can see why the American Right wing is fearful of these law, as much of their personal and group belief system is tailored for exclusion of persons unlike them. And occasionally a person on the left does violence at ill thought of groups, toward ie racists, polluters and such, but the hallmark idea of those of us on the modern left is inclusion of everybody, and even to include bigoted wingnuts if they start acting like human beings and not entitled idjits.
freelancer
OT –
Scientists sometimes use sports metaphors to explain a difficult concept, when Coaches use science metaphors to explain simple concepts, it’s a tad bit more amusing:
Fail.
anonevent
@Makewi: The reason we have hate crime laws is because they are going after the intent of the crime. If you rob and beat up a gay man because he was the first person you ran into, then you get charged with murder. If beat up a gay man because he’s gay, then you are attempting to intimidate all gays. That is the hate crime, or as I am saying, a terrorist act.
Tonal Crow
@Mark S.:
Probably. WordPress is the very definition of “blogging software fail.”
——-
This paragraph contains no asterisks.
This paragraph contains two asterisks, surrounding *this*.
This paragraph contains three asterisks, one:*, two:*, three:*….abcdef.
Edit: I’ll be darned. WordPress is even more arbitrary than I thought.
Incertus
@Makewi:
No. And now you’ve taken stupid to a whole new level.
Chad N Freude
Makewi:
@No. Police are not generally attacked for being members of a police force (which, by the way is a profession, not an identifying group characteristic.)
I suppose the rape of a gay man or a lesbian by one or more homophobics could be classified as a hate crime, but what is the defining group characteristic of rape victims in general?
Some combination of that and societal vengeance.
It’s the same argument that is made for any criminal penalty. What’s your point?
Makewi
@Midnight Marauder:
You are now attempting to read malicious intent into my comments, so if you feel the need to continue to do so the best course of action for me is to stop discussing the issue with you further. Children are a separate or protected class, so using them as an example is not malicious, it’s precise. I am not suggesting, as per your comment, to say that gays are children.
As for gocarts comment:
Reasonable people can disagree, and since society is not a stagnant thing continued debate on societal rules and evaluations of existing policies to measure against stated goals is necessary and good.
That said, and if this policy is enacted in order to change society then having a way to measure success becomes important. If it is merely enacted for retribution, then evaluation of societies feelings towards this is also important as our feelings change with some frequency on the idea of what constitutes just punishment.
Chad N Freude
@Chad N Freude: Well, something screwed up the @Makewi pointer.
LD50
I don’t think she has one. I think Makewi just wants to shoot out a huge amount of blather in hopes that something sticks, as she’s admitted to doing in the past. And by ‘something sticks’, her goal her is to make more people think ‘LIBRULS SUCK’.
Midnight Marauder
@Makewi:
This is what I get for engaging you in the first place…
Does anything in my previous post indicate that your comments were malicious in nature or execution? No, it does not. What it does say is that, yes, children are a protected class. Fine. But the comparison between the two groups as protected classes is pretty nonsensical.
There’s a world of difference in why each group is protected, and the type of protections they are afforded. I haven’t heard too many stories of children walking out of children’s bars and being beaten up solely because they were children. There is no Matthew Sheppard equivalent in the battle for children’s right, is there? And my comment did not say that you were saying that “gays are children.” It was saying, just like I did above, that the basis of your comparison was ridiculous and entirely off base.
I know that the right wing types think that all hate crime laws are is just a way to get back at them for “thinking differently,” but that’s complete and utter bullshit. The impetus behind the laws is not retribution, and it never has been.
That’s a straw man, through and through.
Flugelhorn
It was disingenuous for the hate crimes issue to be included in this bill. They believed that the Republicans would absolutely have to vote in favor of it to get the troops the necessary funding.
What you SHOULD be angry about is that the Dems tried to pull this type of chicanery just as you would be angry with Republicans if the reverse were true.
There is no need for hate crimes legislation. If a man or woman is harmed, there are already laws in place to punish those people. It should not matter why the offense occured.
In Fort Worth, a 66 year old pizza delivery driver was beaten within an inch of his life by 3 hispanics with baseball bats for $20 and a free pizza. Should we now put in hate crimes legislation to include pizza delivery people? Perhaps it should include crimes against anyone over 65 as ageism? No. I do not think so.
When these hispanic teens get caught, they will be punished just as if it were 3 teenagers of any other race beating anyone else of any age working in any other occupation. Wrong is wrong. Hate crimes legislation is unnneccessary and shows bias and favoritism to people of a certain group. How is this different from creating special legislation for crimes committed against white people by another race? Does the law protect people with money more than it protects people without who rob them? Would this be equitable? I do not think so.
Da Bomb
@Midnight Marauder: Pretty much every time Makewi speaks straw falls out of his/her mouth. And everything is nonsensical.
It’s like reasoning with a 5 year old, but then that would be an insult to 5 years old everywhere.
Midnight Marauder
@Flugelhorn:
Do you really want an answer to that question?
Makewi
@General Winfield Stuck:
Sadly, strictly written statues present problems as well in that no law can ever take into account the entirety of individual circumstance. Likewise, there are problems with no judicial discretion and with too much. The system is imperfect, as human systems usually are. Which makes the questions about desirability and necessity of new law critical.
I know how you feel about the “right wing”, but if it’s all the same to you I’d just assume leave that out of our discussion as it never seems to go good places.
Makewi
@Midnight Marauder:
Fine, we’re done. Have a good life.
General Winfield Stuck
@Flugelhorn:
asshat.
Just wanted to say that for no particular reason.
General Winfield Stuck
@Makewi:
Bwaa Haaa hee LMAOROTF
You’re too much Scarlett and thanks for the belly laugh.
I think this deserves Internet Tradition Status, STAT
Can’t stop laughin’ made me day.:)
General Winfield Stuck
Twer a Makewism
Midnight Marauder
@Makewi:
Aww, poor baby. Little sensitive Makewi can’t handle a discussion based on the merits of arguments? No fun when someone won’t do your Straw Man Dance?
Makewi
@Incertus:
Really? Not so sure about that. What constitutes acceptable proof in a determination of a hate crime?
Joel
I do hate the practice of adding riders, and the idea of hate crimes is iffy to me (however, Republicans are not principled on this — imagine their response if a RICO repeal was tied in with hate crimes).. On the other hand, maybe they should expand RICO to include investment bankers…
Flugelhorn
@Midnight Marauder: The written law does not. Your implication though is that people with more money can mount a better defense. This works for people of ALL races, beliefs and sexualities. OJ anyone? Dante Stallworth?
The point is that the LAW does not stipulate that people over a certain income recieve lighter sentences than others. Neither does it stipulate that crimes AGAINST people of a certain income should be more harshly punished.
Flugelhorn
@General Winfield Stuck: Clever boy, as always.
ksmiami
DEAR GOP:
You suck, your party sucks, you have no ideas and you can’t run anything. Also you wrecked what was left of the country from 1996 on. Not to mention you have really bad fashion sense. Anway, I am here to personally make sure you wither as a regional party and go the way of the know-nothings, oh yeah and did I mention that you all just totally suck…
I am starting a feeder blog called http://www.republicanaholes.com
General Winfield Stuck
@Flugelhorn:
I try
Daman
Over 50% of the congressional budget goes to the defense department for the efforts of perpetual war. The one we’re currently mired in happens to be illegal.
And “hate crimes” are thought crimes. It’s not criminal to hold a particular opinion of a person or a group of persons. It’s criminal initiate force against, threaten the use of force or defraud another individual or group of individuals. Crimes are not some how made more heinous or should be punished more severely because the motive was related to the victims race or sexuality. Just as crimes should not be considered less heinous or should be punished LESS severely because race of sexuality were NOT a motive.
I’m glad someone is congress voted “Nay” on something, for God’s sake. I can’t think of a single legal law congress has made in my life time.
I’m sure fans of this blog are also big fans of gun control and are firm in their opinions that individuals don’t have a right to defend their self. Yes, let’s just have an elite class of people to be entrusted with protecting the people. You’d be mollified by the games that are coming out, like “2011: Obama’s Coup Fails”. I’d also advise you video google a good documentary called “Innocents Betrayed”
Comrade Dread
Being against Hate Crimes legislation does not mean you hate gays or want to see them beaten up.
There are laws against crimes committed against persons already. Giving overzealous prosecutors (who are not exactly a group known for restraint) additional charges to pile on to an indictment is, in my opinion, not a great idea.
YMMV, but considering that it is routine to throw everything in the book at someone in order to intimidate the accused into waiving a jury trial and taking a plea, I can’t see these laws doing anything but exacerbating that situation.
And yes, this whole nonsense about slipping widely disparate amendments into bills that have nothing to do with them should be stopped. But the Republicans are tools and have no moral ground to stand on that issue.
General Winfield Stuck
@Daman:
Actually no. This blog houses your standard issue well armed liberal, but you would know that if you read it some before opening up your puke funnel.
Just wanted to try out that BJ lexicon word, which is my fav btw.
Flugelhorn
@ksmiami: You, on the other hand, are pure awesome. Everything you say should be chisled into stone and placed directly into law. I daresay that after such reasoned speach, you should be immediately elevated to High Dictator of All You Survey and show everyone how a country should be run.
Can I get a hallelujah?
auntieeminaz
@Flugelhorn: Hallelujah!
Midnight Marauder
@Flugelhorn:
No, that is not my implication. My implication is pivoting right off your question, which was “Does the law protect people with money more than it protects people without who rob them?” I say, yes, it does. Because when I think “people with money,” I think folks on Wall Street. I think CEOs and hedge fund managers who haven’t come close to seeing a day in court for the staggering number of illegal and negligent actions they’ve committed. And why are all your examples black football players?
It may not “stipulate” these things, but you would be a fool to think that’s not the way it goes down on a daily basis.
Flugelhorn
@Comrade Dread: Hear Hear. Talk about your false equivalencies. The issues are mutually exclusive and should not be cause to throw the baby out with the bath water.
On another note:
I still do not quite understand how a John Cole can go from being a Bush Republican to a Democrat and agree seemingly 100% with Democrat issues that he formerly opposed to the same degree. Boggles my mind.
Comrade Dread
Nope. I’m very fond of guns in the hands of responsible citizens. Probably the Jeffersonian streak in me.
But, let’s be realistic, shall we? Obama is not going to usurp the Constitution any more than any other president has in the last 50 years. He’s a liberal, not the islamo-commie fascist dictator of the RedState Trike Force’s imaginings.
Just Some Fuckhead
Christ, are you tellin me we coulda defunded the Iraq war years ago by attaching gay-friendly legislation to defense appropriation bills?
*lone shot rings out*
(thump)
Midnight Marauder
@Flugelhorn:
Maybe because he didn’t.
/The More You Know…
Makewi
@Comrade Dread:
So pretty much as much as the situation dictates then, or as much as he thinks he can get away with. Also, I wouldn’t limit the scope to just 50 years, I’d go all the way back.
gwangung
WRONG
WRONG
WRONG.
Do us a favor and learn something about law, OK? Hate crimes have to do with intent, which is something that is quite allowable in law.
Just because you are being sloppy in your thinking does not mean everyone else is.
Flugelhorn
@Midnight Marauder:
The crimes these CEOs and hedge fund managers commit need to have stiffer punishments written into the law. The issue here is that they are not stiff enough. They are punished the same regardless of race or sexuality. Try not to change the subject from violent crimes to white collar crime. We were speaking of hate crimes legislation, not wall street crimes.
I mentioned these black football players because they are/were wealthy and have celebrtiy (A whole other ball of wax) and it addresses the point I made which is that people with money across all races and sexualities can mount better defenses and get off relatively unscathed compared to their less wealthy contemporaries. Race and sexuality do not come into it.
Makewi
@General Winfield Stuck:
I’m just saying that you can take it as a “known known” that you aren’t fond of the GOP. Are you afraid of associating with or finding common ground with someone the group has identified as a Republican?
Legalize
Only among idiots and racists.
You’re right. Lincoln was all about letting the states do whatever they liked at the expense of the union.
Funny.
Elections have consequences.
Try winning more elections.
“Should” arguments in favor of repealing American history in favor of dumbing things down for idiots and racists are awesome.
General Winfield Stuck
@Makewi:
I only fear the lack of comedy, today you hath sustained me.
Makewi
@gwangung:
To quote someone you know:
WRONG
WRONG
WRONG
All crime, to be crime, must “have to do with intent”. Hate crime has to do with punishing at a different level certain motivations, and sometimes, suspected motivations.
Makewi
@General Winfield Stuck:
I’m a giver.
Midnight Marauder
@Flugelhorn:
No, the issue is that charges haven’t even been brought against folks like that in the first place. What does it matter if the punishments are made stiffer when the step that precedes those punishments is never initiated? And based on what I read, your original question was just an exploratory hypothetical regarding a different class distinction. It’s not changing the subject. I focused on one particular element of your post and the discussion went from there.
Or not get charged at all. That’s my point. The higher up the socio-economic bracket you go, the less likely you are to ever face any real punishment for any crime you commit.
gwangung
@Makewi:
Try again, Oh Lazy One. This wording applies just as well to homicide as it does to hate crimes (manslaughter, first degree murder, negligent homicide, etc.). Gotta do better than that.
HyperIon
@gocart mozart wrote: I think he likes being an asshole just to get attention.
I think you are giving him what he wants.
Ignore BOB.
What’s so hard about it?
If no one EVER responded to his comments, how long do you think he would continue to post them?
gocart mozart
@Daman:
@HyperIon:
Yeah but sometimes its fun to play with a troll.
HyperIon
@Mark S. wrote: I have no idea why the 2nd paragraph of my comment is bolded. Do asterisks have something to do with it?
That should be in the FAQ IMO.
But nothing that substantive is currently addressed there.
Why not be the first to ask a question whose answer would help someone new to this site?
And, yes, i believe *words surrounded with asterisks* get bolded.
Makewi
@gwangung:
Again, wrong. Murder, manslaughter and negligent homicide are each separate crimes. A “hate crime” is not a crime in and of itself, it is an enhancement to an existing crime.
Is it possible for you to discuss without insulting?
gocart mozart
A Balloon Juice without trolls would be like Thanksgiving dinner without a racist dining room table.
gocart mozart
Dodedeedeedo, playing with the troll.
No moran, its a different crime or is 1st degree murder just an enhancement to 2nd degree murder? The argument that “hate crime laws” are not crimes does have a majestic stupidity to it I’ll give you that.
No. SATSQ
Gwangung
@Makewi:When you’re not insulting people by throwing up stuff that is I’ll thought out and wrong, I do not insult you. It’s basically giving back what you put out.
And, no. You’re flat out wrong on what you said. Try again. You’re totally off base and insulting in your sloppiness.
Try again.
Makewi
@gocart mozart:
I applaud your ability to bask in your magnificent ignorance. I think we’re done here. Eat, drink, and be merry.
Makewi
@Gwangung:
Let’s try it this way then. What are the four elements of a crime?
gocart mozart
@Makewi:
Not so fast dingleberry.
I’ll take this low hanging fruit Gwangung if you don’t mind.
Different crimes have different elements moran. That’s like asking “How many toppings are there on a pizza?”
Makewi
@Gwangung:
What are the four elements of a crime? No rush, just didn’t want you to think I was going to let others give the wrong answer for you.
Notorious P.A.T.
So, BoB is against the 14th amendment not because it grants “personhood” to corporations, but because it might be used to protedt homosexuals from hatred? Sheeeeeesh.
gocart mozart
@Makewi:
I’d explain it to you with finger puppets so you could understand it Makewi but my version of Firefox does not have that application.
Makewi
@gocart mozart:
As I said, we are done here, but in the interest of giving you a chance to increase your understanding of things there are 4 legal elements to any crime.
You can call it low hanging fruit, or call me a “moran” if you want, but it is clear that you don’t know the answer.
gocart mozart
@Notorious P.A.T.:
The 1890’s Supreme Court pulled that right out of their collective asses. No where in the 14th Am does it say or imply that. This was about the same time they ruled that blacks were not entitled to ride in the white section of trains. You would think that a “strict constructionist” would try to rectify this 120 year old example of judicial activism but (chirp, chirp)
William
@Flugelhorn, @Daman:
You both assert that hate crimes are no worse than ordinary crimes, but you don’t back that up with anything. You seem to be having trouble telling the difference between “I can’t think of an example of X” and “X does not exist”.
In this case, if you’d taken an entire three minutes to read Wikipedia’s article on hate crimes, you’d see that there is a list of additional harms. Given that, it seems quite reasonable that we’d punish them more harshly.
Zuzu's Petals
@Makewi:
Congratulations. You may be the only person on the planet with no sexual orientation. Or race.
gocart mozart
@Makewi:
False, but its interesting that you are absolutely certain that All crimes have four elements yet you don’t know what they are. Why don’t you enlighten us then.
One example among many, statutory rape has two elements: Having sex with someone underage. Sex/underage
Makewi
@Zuzu’s Petals:
Thanks I guess. Only I do have a sexual orientation and an ethnicity.
Zuzu's Petals
@Makewi:
Then perhaps you can show me where someone else gets “special protection” under the proposed law that is not available to you?
Zuzu's Petals
@Zuzu’s Petals:
I guess we should also assume Makewi has a gender.
Silver Owl
One thing I can always count on with today’s republicans is for them to always choose a segment of the American population they can hate and it is a bonus to them if they f**k over another segment. In response to getting their hate on they will all collectively whine that is was not their fault. They just had to f**k over as many people as they could for their “family values” or “God will torture the chit out of them forever and ever.”
They so have that wife/child beater mentality down to a fine art. As long as they are beating on someone they feel good about themselves.
gocart mozart
Also Makewi, if there is a different element or an added element to a crime it is a different crime. Ipso facto, QED, and also. O.K I’m done with you. Smarter trolls please John.
I know, you fight with the trolls you have, not the ones you wish you had or something.
gocart mozart
I nominate “Ipso Facto, QED. and Also” for the lexicon. Any seconds?
General Winfield Stuck
@Zuzu’s Petals:
It’s a common feature among post Bush repubs who have suddenly found gray areas in which to abide.
Makewi
@Zuzu’s Petals:
You are correct, I should use more exact terminology. It’s not special protections, its protected class. Thanks for pointing that out.
And yes, I also have a gender.
gocart mozart
Which is?
Makewi
Introductory criminal law.
Also, the reasons that most hate crime legislation takes the form of punishment enhancement for existing crime, rather than being separately defined crime has to do with the USSC decisions in R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992) and Wisconsin v. Mitchell (1993), as well as the obvious issue with the equal protection clause of the Constitution.
Sanka
Yeah ok. That’s exactly what they think. Because voting against a law that is “anti-gay” means you hate gays, as per Nancy Pelosi.
Is this what the left’s argument to everything comes down to? Petty and amateurish politcial name calling? That, and the ever so popular “well Bush did it for eight years”…
The echo chamber seems to be getting pretty confined.
gocart mozart
@Sanka:
Well Sanka, yesterday they voted against Franken’s bill not because they love rape but because they love Halliburton, so, you do have a point.
JMC in the ATL
One of the primary reasons for hate crimes legislation is to give jurisdiction to a higher level of authority (state, federal) to intervene in a case where the local LEOs / courts refuse to take action.
General Winfield Stuck
@Sanka:
You Lie!
Zuzu's Petals
@Makewi:
In which case you might want to reconsider your argument that under the proposed law gays and lesbians would “be considered a seperate [sic] class of citizen.”
John Rohan
Sanka (#152): Thank you for a little sanity here. Almost everyone here are so wrapped up in discussing legal trivialities that they are missing the whole point.
It doesn’t even occur to John Cole that there are legitimate reasons for opposing the expansion of hate-crime laws!! That doesn’t necessarily mean that they “hate gays”. And incidentally, James Byrd was killed because he was black, not gay.
Hate-crime laws are the most sinister of slippery-slopes. I find it hard to believe that beating up a member of a minority group, even if it’s motivated by hatred, classifies as a “terrorist act”. Sure there’s hatred involved. But in that case, every crime is a “hate crime”. After all, if there are “hate crimes”, then there should be such thing as a “love crime”, right?
It also doesn’t seem to occur to Cole that Boehner is right in that it is an abuse of power to bring two of the most wildly unrelated pieces of legislation together.
Incidentally, some have also discussed adding military servicemembers to the lists of those protected by hate-crime laws. I am a soldier myself, and strongly oppose this. Does that mean I “hate the military”? Aside from the ludicrious nature of the laws themselves, we are not some disadvantaged group that needs special protection.
And another fun fact: Lest we forget, despite the overwhelming evidence that the motive in the Matthew Shepard killing was robbery, and not hatred of gays, it doesn’t stop Pelosi and may others from milking his name for all the political mileage they can get.
Tonal Crow
@Makewi:
Hate crimes statutes exist to discourage crimes that specially terrorize certain groups, and also to awaken prosecutors to the need to prosecute (as opposed to ignore, or to plead down) those kinds of crimes. There is nothing wrong with a legislature crafting a special solution for a special problem. I am not happy that hate crimes statutes might indirectly discourage some small number of potentially-violent bigots from publicizing their bigotry in fear that they might get a hate-crime enhancement if they act out — after all, the 1st Amendment protects even bigoted speech. But, frankly, if they don’t commit violent crimes, they won’t get hate-crime enhancements.
Zuzu's Petals
@Flugelhorn:
It’s not. It’s the exact same law.
Have you even bothered to read it?
Existing law
Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act
(Note that the perpetrator need not be of a different race under either law.)
kay
@John Rohan:
That isn’t what the legislation does.
It allocates 5 million dollars to be distributed to local law enforcement for investigation and prevention of bias-motivated violence.
It gives the feds jurisdiction if local law enforcement refuses to act.
One more thing. Justice Scalia notes, specifically, that terrorism statutes could be used against those who perpetrate bias-motivated crimes in his argument against hate crime legislation in the Minnesota cross-burning case.
In other words, he recognizes that burning a cross on someone’s lawn is more than a violation of the fire code. It’s intended to terrorize the inhabitants of that house, and any other member of the targeted group.
Even Scalia sees that.
Dave_Violence
Hate speech is free speech. this is the United States of America and you have the right to hate who you want!
…and the right to be hated for it.
TenguPhule
KKK, white boy.
TenguPhule
And we now have isolated free speech zones for that.
TenguPhule
Funny, I don’t recall any Republicans being outraged about slipping gun carrying into federal parks in a totally unrelated bill.
Bootlegger
@Tonal Crow:
Does anyone here really believe a sentencing enhancement would deter a violent racist skinhead? Seriously? If people like that “think twice” they probably wouldn’t be violent racists.
You can argue that hate crime sentencing enhancements are a form of retribution symbolizing our society’s intolerance for those kinds of acts, but a deterrent it is most definitely not.
For evidence on the efficacy of sentencing enhancements I refer you to the War on Drugs.
General Winfield Stuck
@John Rohan:
More dispatch from Planet Wingnut. The rest of your comment was just standard winger obfuscation. Hate crime legislation should be crafted narrowly and well defined to eliminate having it used to broadly. But most people, like with porn, know it when they see it.
John Rohan
And that is the standard knee-jerk response from Planet LeftWingnut, assuming I’m a Republican or some right-wing extremist. Instead, why don’t you try pointing out the “obfuscation” in my post?
I recommend you read this report by ABC News, not really well known as a right-wing propaganda outlet.
The funny thing is, I think the murder was equally bad whether it was over drugs, money, sexual orientation, or whatever. The end result is exactly the same, as was his family’s loss. It’s was certainly the same to him. The only people it matters to are the ones who fear the loss of political propaganda and want to hype this up for every campaign dollar they can get.
There’s one more thing that people here aren’t looking at. Shouldn’t the law be used in some proportion to actual events? If we were facing a rampant epidemic of bias crimes nationwide, then I might understand a little better. But the fact is, bias crimes, especially murder, are incredibly rare. And the feds already have the ability to take over an investigation if they feel it’s been ignored. Ironically, those using similar reasons to argue against the Patriot Act don’t seem to have any problem with the Matthew Shepard Act.
Zuzu's Petals
Well no, they don’t actually. Unless there is an underlying federal crime, they have no jurisdiction at all.
JMC in the ATL
@John Rohan: So sorry, Mr. Heel of Achilles, but making a big deal on your blog about replacing LGF with Powerline on your blogroll because Charles went off the wingnut reservation by distancing himself from all sorts of extreme nationalist crap… that’s out and out wingnuttia.
Out of curiousity, was this you?
http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/13211/salt-lake-city-man-calls-judy-shepard-a-liar-to-her-face Or just one of your fellow travellers?
Makewi
Zuzu’s Petals
I’ll agree to give it some thought.
Tonal Crow
I don’t disagree that society has a right to seek to reduce bias, more so when it is the source of violent crime. I’m curious what your take on the argument regarding the use of capital punishment as a means to reduce murder.
Makewi
@Zuzu’s Petals:
The fed can assert jurisdiction in these sort of cases under the broader category of violation of civil rights. Sort of like getting Capone for tax evasion.
TenguPhule
It reads like a sob story to the judge begging for mercy because “the bad drugs made us do it!”
TenguPhule
I’m sure you speak from personal experience.
John Rohan
JMC in the ATL wrote:
Before this week, I hadn’t commented on Balloon Juice in awhile. I see that the place is still full of those who resort to childish name-calling and insults when they don’t have any actual facts to back up their case… JMC, If you are unemployed, maybe this is a good time to go back to school.
Anyway, if your really read that post, you would see that what really bothered me was not the split with right-wing blogs, but that Charles bans anyone or any site that even politely disagrees with him.
But I’ll say this at least: Unlike LGF, Andrew Sullivan, Daily Kos, and many other large blogs, at least Cole allows sharp disagreement at this site and doesn’t require registration. I give him some credit for that.
John Rohan
LOL, I was almost hoping someone would try to challenge me on that. Actually, I worked as a law-enforcement analyst for some time. But the stats are available to anyone.
For 2007 (last year for complete data), the total number of crimes in the United States (adding violent and property crimes together) was: 11,251,818
Total number of those that were hate crimes of any type at all: 7,624.
I’ll even do the math for you. That comes to a microscopic 0.068%.
Kind of hurts your case, doesn’t it?
Source:
FBI tables here and here.
JMC in the ATL
@John Rohan: Sorry, Heel. Gotta call a wingnut a wingnut.
kay
@Bootlegger:
I don’t think that’s the point of the 5 million allocated dollars, Bootlegger.
You can think of it this as akin to the increased federal scrutiny that the Voting Rights Act affords to protecting minority right to vote in certain areas. Minorities had the legal right to vote. The problem was local law enforcement weren’t enforcing bans on voter supression.
There are state criminal statutes that should insure sanctions for violence based on membership in a disfavored minority. The problem was local law enforcement refused to recognize the threat.
kay
@Zuzu’s Petals:
Exactly.
Flugelhorn
@William: Your comment makes ZERO sense. Citing Wikipedia does not make your arguement stronger, by the way.
Flugelhorn
@Zuzu’s Petals: Did you bother to understand the context of my comment? MAtthew Shephard was Gay. Therein lies the reason for his special class protection.
General Winfield Stuck
@John Rohan:
Yea right. Like we are going to take the word of a hophead sadist murderer as to his motives. People just do not tie robbery victims to a fence and beat them to death for their goddamn wallets. Rohan/idiot wingnut.
And yes, I know that it is fashionable these post-Bush days for republicans to hide the fact they are republicans. The ostrich party would be a more accurate description. ie see Makewi.
Scott Rock
@Flugelhorn: You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what “protected class” entails. Hate crime laws define protected class on the basis of a certain bias, let’s say race. African Americans are a class protected under hate crime statutes. So are White Americans, and Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans, etc.
You will notice that nowhere in the CFR do you find the words “African American” or “Gay” spelled out as “special classes.” I dare you to contradict this.
So if you are white, and face workplace discrimination by black employees on the basis of your race, then you would be protected under hate crime laws.
If you are straight, and are discriminated against by homosexuals on the basis of your sexual orientation, then you would be protected under hate crime laws.
Or, if you prefer, the statutes could remain unaltered, and when all Teh Violent Gayz tie you to a fence and pistol-whip your straight ass to death, well, it’s just another barfight now, right?
Got it? Quitcherbitchin. You’re equally protected.
Scott Rock
@Flugelhorn: You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what “protected class” entails. Hate crime laws define protected classes on the basis of a certain bias, for instance, racial bias. African Americans are a class protected under hate crime statutes. So are White Americans, and Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans, etc.
You will notice that nowhere in the US Code do you find the words “African American” or “Gay” spelled out as “special classes.” I dare you to contradict this.
So if you are white, and face workplace discrimination by black employees on the basis of your race, then you would be protected under hate crime laws.
If you are straight, and are discriminated against by homosexuals on the basis of your sexual orientation, then you would be protected under hate crime laws.
Or, if you prefer, the statutes could remain unaltered, and when all Teh Violent Gayz tie you to a fence and pistol-whip your straight ass to death for being straight, well, it’s just another barfight now, right?
Are you done playing the victim game? Quitcherbitchin. You’re equally protected.
Scott Rock
@Flugelhorn: Here’s the statistics: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2007/victims.htm
To paraphrase John Oliver: You don’t know f*** all about discrimination.
Makewi
@General Winfield Stuck:
Have you ever talked to anyone about your paranoid tendencies? This need to classify things in a way that fit your worldview can’t be good for you in the long run.
As to your assertion that people just don’t blah blah blah and so it must be a hate crime. Bullshit. In the real world people do all sorts of unspeakably horrible crap for the widest variety of lame reasons.
General Winfield Stuck
@Makewi:
Scarlett my dear, I don’t give a damn about your GOP history revisionism based on more loads of hooey. The facts of this case speaks for itself, and the jailhouse rantings of the convicted mean exactly zilch. As does your tired fifth rate trollery. Christ, the “you must be crazy/hear voices routine” is so lame a right wing debate tactic, it makes my teeth hurt.
They robbed him, so there couldn’t be any other motive involved is just an offensive argument when the facts of the case say the extreme violence came not from that.
Including several witnesses who testified he was targetted because he was gay. The little cretins even threw up the “Gay Panic” defense.
So why don’t you, and the rest of the hate apologist trolls get together for a big circle jerk and leave your drivel somewhere else. So to speak.
Zuzu's Petals
@Makewi:
The question was under what circumstances a federal law enforcement agency would “take up” a criminal investigation. Not whether they could pursue it under a civil statute.
So exactly what part of “underlying federal crime” was not clear?
Zuzu's Petals
“take up” = “take over”
Zuzu's Petals
@Makewi:
Yes, you do that.
Zuzu's Petals
@Flugelhorn:
I guess you didn’t bother to read the text of the laws I linked to.
Matthew Shepard would have “special class protection” because he, like you, had a sexual orientation.
Makewi
@General Winfield Stuck:
Oh, you give a damn. It’s why you just can’t quit me. I’d leave your sanity out of it, but it’s you who keeps putting it in play. You may not be crazy, but you sure as hell lack any sort of self awareness or ability to argue against what people are actually saying.
@Zuzu’s Petals:
Oh, don’t you worry, I will.
General Winfield Stuck
@Makewi:
I give a damn about pointing out lying wankers like you and the drivel you deposit here. Your no more than a pig ignorant winger primma dona sent by someone to lie, that is all you are Scarlett, that and a little Princess of Nothing.
Zuzu's Petals
@Makewi:
Great. And after you’ve agreed, maybe you’ll actually think.