http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectID=11&articleID=20080718_11_A1_hGAYCO522310
I can't believe that this is not being treated as a hate crime, even though it is not specifically enumerated as a hate crime in state statutes. When I started practicing law in Tulsa in 2000, fresh out of law school, I saw this kind of discrimination occurring. In Dallas, where I practice now, there are non-discrimination laws on the books that include sexual orientation.
This is the same thing as cross burnings in the South from the 50's. My concern is, how many people will be victimized before this is considered a hate crime by the legislature. I realize that it is actionable as vandalism/criminal mischief. However, the penalties for that crime are not stiff enough to be a deterrent.
Down here, in Arlington, a home was defaced with the words, "Die N----r." It was only after the culprit attacked the homeowner, and savagely beat her, that the culprit was detained. http://www.nbc5i.com/news/14967011/detail.html
The culprit was detained and charged not only with vandalism and criminal mischief, but also with a hate crime. Are the homeowner's in the Oklahoma case any less apprehensive?
Geez. It was like a time warp to 1961. Pretty sure I saw that kind of stuff around here in the sixties. What is happening to our city?
It makes you wonder doesn't it...
However, on a slightly different note I find the entire notion of a hate crime to be ridiculous. Either the act is illegal or its not and "hate crime" is merely a term thought up by some overzealous lawyer in DC in an attempt to look like a hero for "doing something". If you burn someone's house down, inflict bodily harm or destroy someone's property regardless of whether or not its white on black, black on white, white on white, etc etc etc, the punishment should be the same.
quote:
Originally posted by OUGrad05
I find the entire notion of a hate crime to be ridiculous. Either the act is illegal or its not and "hate crime" is merely a term thought up by some overzealous lawyer in DC in an attempt to look like a hero for "doing something". If you burn someone's house down, inflict bodily harm or destroy someone's property regardless of whether or not its white on black, black on white, white on white, etc etc etc, the punishment should be the same.
+1. Political pandering.
Now, when I see the guys vehicle that someone set afire and burned to a crisp I would think they would call it Arson.
But for some reason, it was classified as only "vandalism".
In that respect, I could see discrimination.
I go back and forth on the "hate crime" thing. Havent really thought about it much though. But when they were describing this as an act of vandalism and saying it should be treated like any other act of vandalism... Usually it seems that if a business or car is vandalized its not because they hate you, its just that you got unlucky and happened to end up being the victim. They may not know you or know anything about you or even care.
In this instance it seems they are specifically targeting the person, and, for lack of a better word, hate them.
If you were at the mall and someone bumps into you on accident you feel a certain way.
If you were at the mall and someone bumps into you on purpose, was just going down the mall bumping into whoever to get a reaction and being an arse, not specifically targeting you in particular,,,, you feel differently.
However, if you were at the mall and a person saw you, had perhaps followed you to the mall, specifically targeted you, and you knew the person hated you, and they bump into you in a threatening manner,,, you feel differently still.
Each instance is the exact same thing, just someone bumping into you and should be felt the same, reacted to and thought of the same. Or is it?
If someone vandalized my car. I wouldn't be happy about it, but would realize that its likely that it was just a random event, could have been anyones car, happened to be mine this time. However it feels very differently if someone is intentionally targeting you in a threatening manner, they have a feeling of malice and hate towards you. Thus the "hate" in hate crime. It wasnt just vandalism.
But, even here a "hate crime" if you want to say such a category exists, should exist for everyone, straight, gay, black, white, Jew, etc.
Gotta love how being gay ends up being lined up with race and religion as being equal somehow[;)]
My bet on the story is an ex girlfriend that can't take the fact she lost out to another guy.
Don't you know anything? Only POPULAR groups can be the victim of hate crimes. White people can't. Gay's can't. So there is NO WAY a white gay couple could be. [:)]
Hate crime. I understand the concept but how stupid. Did you spray paint my car because you like me?
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Don't you know anything? Only POPULAR groups can be the victim of hate crimes. White people can't. Gay's can't. So there is NO WAY a white gay couple could be. [:)]
Hate crime. I understand the concept but how stupid. Did you spray paint my car because you like me?
the reason they clamor for hate crime is because they can get the FBI involved.
I think terming everything hate crime is stupid.
But I do have to commend the brazenness of the criminal in this case. That is a trait rarely seen in tulsa today. "i'll be back" that's classic.
and congratulations to Tulsa world for bringing attention to this, no that all the rednecks know I'm sure more gays will start getting torched.
I agree with the victim that if these scumbags are willing to do what they did it really is just a matter of time before their action escalates. Arson is a deadly crime and everything that can be thrown at the case needs to be thrown at it because I doubt this is the first or last time the perps commit a crime of this sort.
Absolutely that is a hate crime, too bad the TPD and/or the DA just cannot get it together.
I'm against all hate crime laws. There is no need for that. A crime is a crime and is covered under current laws. No crime is one of love, all crimes are hate. A criminal does not break into a house and steal that persons belongings out of love. A vandal does not do his deed because he's kind hearted and cares, he does it to be mean. -or so it seems to me.
quote:
Originally posted by sauerkraut
I'm against all hate crime laws. There is no need for that. A crime is a crime and is covered under current laws. No crime is one of love, all crimes are hate. A criminal does not break into a house and steal that persons belongings out of love. A vandal does not do his deed because he's kind hearted and cares, he does it to be mean. -or so it seems to me.
Not to say anything about your opinion on hate crime laws, but not all crimes are hate crimes. A person that breaks into a house and steals may not do it with any feelings towards the person who owns the things, love or hate, they are just there to steal. Perhaps they feel they need to steal something to get drug money. Your house was "picked" not because of you, but because the house looked like one they could steal from. They may have no feelings or intents specifically towards you, what so ever. They arent going out stealing with the intent to hurt someone. They could do any number of things to do that. They are going out to steal, in order to steal, not to hurt people. Though hurting people is exactly what they are doing.
I dont think a burglar knows and hates every person they steal from. If they didnt know where a friend happened to live, they may inadvertantly steal from that friend. Its not about hate, its about stealing.
If a group of teens goes out and vandalizes some cars, they may not know a thing about who owns those cars. Or be doing it because they hate those people. They may not even know who or what kind of people own those cars. They may be mean and hateful kids, but it seems to be to be qualitatively different when someone or a group of people are specifically targeting someone. They are focused on you and will do whatever they can to hurt you. Are looking for ways to hurt you. Knowing that is different than being the victim of a "random act of violence or crime".
And peeps wonder why our children are so eager to leave Oklahoma after college. The one's who don't get a good education stay.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
And peeps wonder why our children are so eager to leave Oklahoma after college. The one's who don't get a good education stay.
About time you all started figuring out it's not the lack of flashy new developments, but the oppression in this state. That and the undue influence that the wealthy have in this state. Many would rather not stay and play these games. Can't say I blame them.
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
the reason they clamor for hate crime is because they can get the FBI involved.
Remember the "Black Church Arson Epidemic" a few years back? It was great press fodder, but once they started to be investigated it was found there were more white churches burned than black churches, and even some of the black church fires were self-set to get in on the publicity (and to collect insurance).
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19981023&slug=2779297
"Hate Crimes" gives momentum to divisive politics, and keeps the playing field unlevel.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
And peeps wonder why our children are so eager to leave Oklahoma after college. The one's who don't get a good education stay.
Some stay because they were also raised with more family values and value family more than money and goods
quote:
Originally posted by MDepr2007
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
And peeps wonder why our children are so eager to leave Oklahoma after college. The one's who don't get a good education stay.
Some stay because they were also raised with more family values and value family more than money and goods
Not to sound like an donkey here, but family values don't pay the bills. I'm all for that, but when it comes right down to it, a little tolerance is good for everyone.
quote:
Originally posted by MDepr2007
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
And peeps wonder why our children are so eager to leave Oklahoma after college. The one's who don't get a good education stay.
Some stay because they were also raised with more family values and value family more than money and goods
Yeah, there's some good 'family values' for you. Go torch the gays 'cause God says its ok.
quote:
Originally posted by MDepr2007
Gotta love how being gay ends up being lined up with race and religion as being equal somehow[;)]
My bet on the story is an ex girlfriend that can't take the fact she lost out to another guy.
What are you talking about? Race and Homosexality are similar in that they are genetic - you are born that way. If you aren't gay then you have no right to argue this since you really have no idea, do you?
Religion is completely choice-based. In fact it is mostly because of religion that we even have hate crimes.
quote:
Originally posted by OUGrad05
It makes you wonder doesn't it...
However, on a slightly different note I find the entire notion of a hate crime to be ridiculous. Either the act is illegal or its not and "hate crime" is merely a term thought up by some overzealous lawyer in DC in an attempt to look like a hero for "doing something". If you burn someone's house down, inflict bodily harm or destroy someone's property regardless of whether or not its white on black, black on white, white on white, etc etc etc, the punishment should be the same.
Actually, hate crimes are called as such because they are motivated by prejudice, or 'hatred' of the victim. It isn't just a random act of violence or criminal behavior. These are criminal acts inflicted upon persons specifically because of their designation, i.e. Jewish, Black, gay, etc. It is very different.
I suspect you have never been the target of such criminal hatred, and I also suspect you would feel differently about it if you had.
quote:
Originally posted by azbadpuppy
quote:
Originally posted by MDepr2007
Gotta love how being gay ends up being lined up with race and religion as being equal somehow[;)]
My bet on the story is an ex girlfriend that can't take the fact she lost out to another guy.
What are you talking about? Race and Homosexality are similar in that they are genetic - you are born that way. If you aren't gay then you have no right to argue this since you really have no idea, do you?
Religion is completely choice-based. In fact it is mostly because of religion that we even have hate crimes.
There is no "gay" gene. They have discovered genes that may (emphasis on the word MAY) cause gay tendencies. Basically people do not know if it is a choice or not.
Whether or not it is a choice or someone is born gay is completely irrelevant with regard to their rights as citizens of the country and of the state. If two consenting adults are compelled by nature to be gay, or simply choose to be gay is irrelevant in my opinion. They are entitled to the same rights and protections as you, me and bob down the street.
We, as a society, often use the law to specifically control, punish or encourage certain human behaviours. We do the same thing in the business world. This is no different.
Why is it not acceptable to you that we want to use specific laws to discourage certain types of crimes that are motivated by hate rather than greed or poor decisionmaking? Isn't it more egregious when murder is committed against a child than a mercy killing by an elderly spouse? Isn't a lynching considered more egregious than a murder during robbery? Motivations and circumstances are important or there wouldn't be so many levels of criminal charges. Of course they are treated differently and should be. Hate crimes are different than crimes of passion.
Once again I am most surprised by the answers I read here from people I generally respect. Hate crimes have a reason and this one is a good example of why.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
We, as a society, often use the law to specifically control, punish or encourage certain human behaviours. We do the same thing in the business world. This is no different.
Why is it not acceptable to you that we want to use specific laws to discourage certain types of crimes that are motivated by hate rather than greed or poor decisionmaking? Isn't it more egregious when murder is committed against a child than a mercy killing by an elderly spouse? Isn't a lynching considered more egregious than a murder during robbery? Motivations and circumstances are important or there wouldn't be so many levels of criminal charges. Of course they are treated differently and should be. Hate crimes are different than crimes of passion.
Once again I am most surprised by the answers I read here from people I generally respect. Hate crimes have a reason and this one is a good example of why.
Why should the people who carried out this act be treated better or worse depending on who they attacked? They should be punished to the fullest extent of the law regardless of who these attackers went after. This was pretty bad and it makes you wonder what these people are capable of...
quote:
Originally posted by OUGrad05
quote:
Originally posted by azbadpuppy
quote:
Originally posted by MDepr2007
Gotta love how being gay ends up being lined up with race and religion as being equal somehow[;)]
My bet on the story is an ex girlfriend that can't take the fact she lost out to another guy.
What are you talking about? Race and Homosexality are similar in that they are genetic - you are born that way. If you aren't gay then you have no right to argue this since you really have no idea, do you?
Religion is completely choice-based. In fact it is mostly because of religion that we even have hate crimes.
There is no "gay" gene. They have discovered genes that may (emphasis on the word MAY) cause gay tendencies. Basically people do not know if it is a choice or not.
Whether or not it is a choice or someone is born gay is completely irrelevant with regard to their rights as citizens of the country and of the state. If two consenting adults are compelled by nature to be gay, or simply choose to be gay is irrelevant in my opinion. They are entitled to the same rights and protections as you, me and bob down the street.
I never said there was a 'gay gene'. And I personally do know that it is not a choice, and if you ask almost every gay person would tell you the same.
Thank you for pointing out that gay persons should be entitled to the same rights and protections as everyone else. Currently, in Oklahoma, they are not.
quote:
Originally posted by OUGrad05
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
We, as a society, often use the law to specifically control, punish or encourage certain human behaviours. We do the same thing in the business world. This is no different.
Why is it not acceptable to you that we want to use specific laws to discourage certain types of crimes that are motivated by hate rather than greed or poor decisionmaking? Isn't it more egregious when murder is committed against a child than a mercy killing by an elderly spouse? Isn't a lynching considered more egregious than a murder during robbery? Motivations and circumstances are important or there wouldn't be so many levels of criminal charges. Of course they are treated differently and should be. Hate crimes are different than crimes of passion.
Once again I am most surprised by the answers I read here from people I generally respect. Hate crimes have a reason and this one is a good example of why.
Why should the people who carried out this act be treated better or worse depending on who they attacked? They should be punished to the fullest extent of the law regardless of who these attackers went after. This was pretty bad and it makes you wonder what these people are capable of...
Because it is a different kind of crime. That is why they should be treated as such. It isn't
just vandalism. It's targeting individuals, motivated by hate. Its especially egregious. More often than not persons carrying out targeted attacks like this are capable of pretty violent behavior and therefore we should have specific laws to address these specific crimes.
Would you feel any different if it was a black family, and a cross was burned on their lawn, and the police called it 'criminal mischief' and basically brushed it off, because after all that is only a misdemeanor and not very serious...
I hate crime just as much as anyone else.....
[:P]
quote:
Originally posted by azbadpuppy
quote:
Originally posted by OUGrad05
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
We, as a society, often use the law to specifically control, punish or encourage certain human behaviours. We do the same thing in the business world. This is no different.
Why is it not acceptable to you that we want to use specific laws to discourage certain types of crimes that are motivated by hate rather than greed or poor decisionmaking? Isn't it more egregious when murder is committed against a child than a mercy killing by an elderly spouse? Isn't a lynching considered more egregious than a murder during robbery? Motivations and circumstances are important or there wouldn't be so many levels of criminal charges. Of course they are treated differently and should be. Hate crimes are different than crimes of passion.
Once again I am most surprised by the answers I read here from people I generally respect. Hate crimes have a reason and this one is a good example of why.
Why should the people who carried out this act be treated better or worse depending on who they attacked? They should be punished to the fullest extent of the law regardless of who these attackers went after. This was pretty bad and it makes you wonder what these people are capable of...
Because it is a different kind of crime. That is why they should be treated as such. It isn't just vandalism. It's targeting individuals, motivated by hate. Its especially egregious. More often than not persons carrying out targeted attacks like this are capable of pretty violent behavior and therefore we should have specific laws to address these specific crimes.
Would you feel any different if it was a black family, and a cross was burned on their lawn, and the police called it 'criminal mischief' and basically brushed it off, because after all that is only a misdemeanor and not very serious...
You make good points, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
I do agree these people are very dangerous but anyone who commits arson is a dangerous person, as is vandelism of this sort.
quote:
Originally posted by azbadpuppy
quote:
Originally posted by OUGrad05
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
We, as a society, often use the law to specifically control, punish or encourage certain human behaviours. We do the same thing in the business world. This is no different.
Why is it not acceptable to you that we want to use specific laws to discourage certain types of crimes that are motivated by hate rather than greed or poor decisionmaking? Isn't it more egregious when murder is committed against a child than a mercy killing by an elderly spouse? Isn't a lynching considered more egregious than a murder during robbery? Motivations and circumstances are important or there wouldn't be so many levels of criminal charges. Of course they are treated differently and should be. Hate crimes are different than crimes of passion.
Once again I am most surprised by the answers I read here from people I generally respect. Hate crimes have a reason and this one is a good example of why.
Why should the people who carried out this act be treated better or worse depending on who they attacked? They should be punished to the fullest extent of the law regardless of who these attackers went after. This was pretty bad and it makes you wonder what these people are capable of...
Because it is a different kind of crime. That is why they should be treated as such. It isn't just vandalism. It's targeting individuals, motivated by hate. Its especially egregious. More often than not persons carrying out targeted attacks like this are capable of pretty violent behavior and therefore we should have specific laws to address these specific crimes.
Would you feel any different if it was a black family, and a cross was burned on their lawn, and the police called it 'criminal mischief' and basically brushed it off, because after all that is only a misdemeanor and not very serious...
Man I hate not having an edit button here...
If a cross were burned on a black family's lawn I'd call it harassment and arson. I personally do not believe in hate crimes. Crimes should be punished equally regardless of who they target. Again a personal opinion as you have yours, we'll probably not see eye to eye on this one :)
quote:
Originally posted by OUGrad05
quote:
Originally posted by azbadpuppy
quote:
Originally posted by OUGrad05
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
We, as a society, often use the law to specifically control, punish or encourage certain human behaviours. We do the same thing in the business world. This is no different.
Why is it not acceptable to you that we want to use specific laws to discourage certain types of crimes that are motivated by hate rather than greed or poor decisionmaking? Isn't it more egregious when murder is committed against a child than a mercy killing by an elderly spouse? Isn't a lynching considered more egregious than a murder during robbery? Motivations and circumstances are important or there wouldn't be so many levels of criminal charges. Of course they are treated differently and should be. Hate crimes are different than crimes of passion.
Once again I am most surprised by the answers I read here from people I generally respect. Hate crimes have a reason and this one is a good example of why.
Why should the people who carried out this act be treated better or worse depending on who they attacked? They should be punished to the fullest extent of the law regardless of who these attackers went after. This was pretty bad and it makes you wonder what these people are capable of...
Because it is a different kind of crime. That is why they should be treated as such. It isn't just vandalism. It's targeting individuals, motivated by hate. Its especially egregious. More often than not persons carrying out targeted attacks like this are capable of pretty violent behavior and therefore we should have specific laws to address these specific crimes.
Would you feel any different if it was a black family, and a cross was burned on their lawn, and the police called it 'criminal mischief' and basically brushed it off, because after all that is only a misdemeanor and not very serious...
Man I hate not having an edit button here...
If a cross were burned on a black family's lawn I'd call it harassment and arson. I personally do not believe in hate crimes. Crimes should be punished equally regardless of who they target. Again a personal opinion as you have yours, we'll probably not see eye to eye on this one :)
And you are entitled to your opinion. I just have to point out that you may feel differently if you were a victim of this kind of crime. It's easy to say that laws protecting certain groups are unnecessary when you aren't in one of those groups. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but not at the expense of my (or anyone elses) safety and well being.
Is it hurting anyone to have these laws, other than the criminals? If it helps protect people and keeps criminals off the streets longer then how can it be a bad thing? If it deters even one criminal from carrying out a violent crime, how is that unnecessary? In a perfect world we wouldn't need such laws. However, since obviously there are quite a few a**hole bigots out there causing trouble, we do need them.
The problem with just enforcing the laws on the books is that it doesn't encompass the whole crime. The cops in the article are right. It's just vandalism. But you and I know that the meaning of the crime is worse than, say, if it were a prankster kid, and it is potentially much worse if the vandals come back and escalate even further.
It also can't be stressed enough: the hate crime designation exists to diagnose the motivation of the perp, not to protect specific groups. It's a really fine distinction, but a crucial one. If the perp is motivated to commit his/her crime because of a bias towards a specific group, rather than an individual, then voila, there's your hate crime. It does NOT mean that any crime against gays is automatically a hate crime because they are a protected group. So what that means is that, yes, Maude, us poor downtrodden straight white religious men can be targets of hate crimes, too, and we can be targeted by gay muslim women from American Samoa. There is a popular perception that the hate crime designation protect minorities only, and that's simply not true. It protects everyone.
I'm not a huge fan in principle (please note caveat) of hate-crime laws, especially when you have what are called "factors of aggravation" during sentencing. If a crime was motivated by bigotry, then that's obviously a cue for a judge to hand down a tougher sentence than vandalism that was simply mischievous.
But my theory is that hate crimes were enacted because you still have judges out there (think older guys in the deep, rural South) that hold their own biases against people of other races and sexual orientations, and would simply ignore those factors of aggravation, much like many Southern judges (and juries) did during the civil rights era of the 1950s and '60s.
So, in the interest of justice, I think hate crime laws are OK and warranted.
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
The problem with just enforcing the laws on the books is that it doesn't encompass the whole crime. The cops in the article are right. It's just vandalism. But you and I know that the meaning of the crime is worse than, say, if it were a prankster kid, and it is potentially much worse if the vandals come back and escalate even further.
It also can't be stressed enough: the hate crime designation exists to diagnose the motivation of the perp, not to protect specific groups. It's a really fine distinction, but a crucial one. If the perp is motivated to commit his/her crime because of a bias towards a specific group, rather than an individual, then voila, there's your hate crime. It does NOT mean that any crime against gays is automatically a hate crime because they are a protected group. So what that means is that, yes, Maude, us poor downtrodden straight white religious men can be targets of hate crimes, too, and we can be targeted by gay muslim women from American Samoa. There is a popular perception that the hate crime designation protect minorities only, and that's simply not true. It protects everyone.
You make some good points, but I disagree that hate crime laws do not exist to protect specific groups. Indeed that is their whole reason for being. The motivation is the determining factor in designating a hate crime, but the laws are there to protect and deter.
Unfortunately even though hate crimes can happen to anyone, only certain groups are protected in Oklahoma, so just make sure you're not gay or a woman.
Anyone read this yet?
http://www.newsweek.com/id/147790>1=43002
Frightening and fascinating story involving two very messed up children. I believe very strongly in the notion of hate crimes and support stronger punishment for bad guys who target individuals specifically because they belong to a particular class - be it religious, ethnic, sexual or what-have-you. That said, I wonder whether this was a hate crime, a crime of passion, a killing to silence a blackmailer or a killing to stop sexual harrassment.
Hate crime legislation must include gays and lesbians. It is important to stop crimes such as the murder of Matthew Shepard. It is not who we "present ourselves to be." We are who we are.
I am an attorney who practices in both Texas and Oklahoma. I worked tirelessly to stop the Constitutional amendments against same-sex marriage.
The hatred that is apparent from Oklahoma is the reason why I fight.
By the way, My Husband and I love our live here in Dallas. And we are raising our child, together.
I have problem with the term "hate crime" because it only "exists" so to speak if you hate a group that is on a certain list. Sure, we can add Gay, Lesbian, Transvestite, Transexual, Bisexual and whatever else but we will still be saying "go ahead and pick another group and burn their houses down" because they aren't as important.
Classify hate crimes as something like this "acts of vandalism or terrorism perpetrated against a group of persons whose motive is hatred of a shared trait amongst the victims" Because as far as I'm concerned, if you are excluding groups from being "protected" like this, it seems silly to include any of them
+100,000,000
well said, sgrizzle.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
I have problem with the term "hate crime" because it only "exists" so to speak if you hate a group that is on a certain list. Sure, we can add Gay, Lesbian, Transvestite, Transexual, Bisexual and whatever else but we will still be saying "go ahead and pick another group and burn their houses down" because they aren't as important.
Classify hate crimes as something like this "acts of vandalism or terrorism perpetrated against a group of persons whose motive is hatred of a shared trait amongst the victims" Because as far as I'm concerned, if you are excluding groups from being "protected" like this, it seems silly to include any of them
That's what I was trying to clarify. Hate crimes are crimes against a characteristic, but not a certain type of characteristic. A hate crime, in other words, is a crime perpetrated because of someone's race, but not because of a specific race. Similarly, a hate crime is a crime perpetrated because of someone's religion, but not because of a specific religion.
My point is, azbadpuppy has it wrong. "GLBT" would not be what's added to the hate crimes statutes. "Sexual orientation" would. And that would protect straight people from crimes perpetrated on them because of their orientation. Similarly, hate crimes can be perpetrated on whites because of their race as well.
Point being, it also protects you, Sgrizz and Rwarn, from crimes done to you because of your race, religion, etc.
Well said Sgrizzle.
If the crime is meant to be a "message" to a group of people, I can see a greater degree of criminality and justification for more punishment. It's akin to an act of terrorism towards that group, in the classical "I want you to be scared" sense of the word.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
quote:
Originally posted by sauerkraut
I'm against all hate crime laws. There is no need for that. A crime is a crime and is covered under current laws. No crime is one of love, all crimes are hate. A criminal does not break into a house and steal that persons belongings out of love. A vandal does not do his deed because he's kind hearted and cares, he does it to be mean. -or so it seems to me.
Not to say anything about your opinion on hate crime laws, but not all crimes are hate crimes. A person that breaks into a house and steals may not do it with any feelings towards the person who owns the things, love or hate, they are just there to steal. Perhaps they feel they need to steal something to get drug money. Your house was "picked" not because of you, but because the house looked like one they could steal from. They may have no feelings or intents specifically towards you, what so ever. They arent going out stealing with the intent to hurt someone. They could do any number of things to do that. They are going out to steal, in order to steal, not to hurt people. Though hurting people is exactly what they are doing.
I dont think a burglar knows and hates every person they steal from. If they didnt know where a friend happened to live, they may inadvertantly steal from that friend. Its not about hate, its about stealing.
If a group of teens goes out and vandalizes some cars, they may not know a thing about who owns those cars. Or be doing it because they hate those people. They may not even know who or what kind of people own those cars. They may be mean and hateful kids, but it seems to be to be qualitatively different when someone or a group of people are specifically targeting someone. They are focused on you and will do whatever they can to hurt you. Are looking for ways to hurt you. Knowing that is different than being the victim of a "random act of violence or crime".
OK- but it has to be remembered that a person who breaks into a house has to know that he is making the home owner very unhappy and the residents will have the feeling of being "invaded" for some time to come. The same goes for stealing a car, the person lost a item of great expense and also lost his/her means of transportation and they could lose their job if they have no transportation.
quote:
Originally posted by azbadpuppy
Thank you for pointing out that gay persons should be entitled to the same rights and protections as everyone else. Currently, in Oklahoma, they are not.
Um, as a straight white male, gays are allowed EXACTLY the same protections as me. I think what you mean to say is that they are not "extra" protected by some funny legislation that deems it to be a worse crime for offending them.
I could care less that they may or may not have chosen their current sexual preference. Why should someone's sexual preference garner them any special treatment? Why should the police work harder when investigating gay crime than straight crime? I think that crime is crime, and that should be it. I hope whoever did it gets caught, just like if they did it to me. Having two sets of punishments is about as stupid and bigoted as you can get.
Tee, read the above justifications. If the crime is about intimidating a group of people it warrants more investigation. It is more likely the effects will be greater than an individual crime AND it is more likely that the crime will escalate.
This would be true for gay people, or a white family that moved into a predominantly black neighborhood if they were to face crimes of intimidation.
As the law is currently setup, the consensus appears to be that it needs improvement. The "magic list" approach is foolish IMHO.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Tee, read the above justifications. If the crime is about intimidating a group of people it warrants more investigation. It is more likely the effects will be greater than an individual crime AND it is more likely that the crime will escalate.
This would be true for gay people, or a white family that moved into a predominantly black neighborhood if they were to face crimes of intimidation.
As the law is currently setup, the consensus appears to be that it needs improvement. The "magic list" approach is foolish IMHO.
We have laws to keep everyone on an even playing field. There is no need for further legislation.
http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/2005-06bills/HB/HB2615_ENR.RTF
I can't think of a better reason to have a reasonable fear than the perpetrator had already threatened, and destroyed the property of you and your family.
quote:
Originally posted by TeeDub
quote:
Originally posted by azbadpuppy
Thank you for pointing out that gay persons should be entitled to the same rights and protections as everyone else. Currently, in Oklahoma, they are not.
Um, as a straight white male, gays are allowed EXACTLY the same protections as me. I think what you mean to say is that they are not "extra" protected by some funny legislation that deems it to be a worse crime for offending them.
I could care less that they may or may not have chosen their current sexual preference. Why should someone's sexual preference garner them any special treatment? Why should the police work harder when investigating gay crime than straight crime? I think that crime is crime, and that should be it. I hope whoever did it gets caught, just like if they did it to me. Having two sets of punishments is about as stupid and bigoted as you can get.
Exactly. I'm against giving gays speical rights over anyone else- And I'm against giving gays extra/speical rights in the work force. That would be very unfair, as in example if two people at a company are up for a promotion, a straight guy and a gay guy both with equal skills and the boss gave the promotion to a 3rd party, the gay guy could sue claiming the boss picked the 3rd person over him because the boss does not like gays. The straight guy would be out of luck he would have no recourse he would not be able to sue on any grounds. Letting a gay person sue just because of his lifestyle is totally wrong.
1) The manner in which I phrased it gave no one group "special treatment." If gave credit concern to a crime committed with the intent of intimidating a group. Black, white, Hispanic, gay or straight.
2) Since we are on to employment law, lets address that for a moment. The proposed legislation around the nation would prohibit "you're fired because your gay" or "we don't hire your kind here." It does not go so far as enabling preferential treatment.
A step further, does that mean you are against legislation protecting employment on racial grounds? Ie. forbidding employers from firing all colored people is bad because it could lead to the scenario you set up? Thus, we should allow employers to fire black people for being black.
I'm playing devils advocate here, but your argument is flawed. I don't think laws protecting homosexuals need to be crafted, I think our current laws need to be better drafted to protect groups of people being discriminated against instead of only certain sanctified groups. Selecting groups is counter productive ("so and so only got the job because he's black/Indian/whatever") in many ways and often racist (racist: discrimination based on race. Thus, hiring a black person because he is black would be discriminatory to other applicants).
Bah. Laws can try to change public sentiment by they usually fail. If you hate homosexuals you will no matter what the law says about it. But I think intimidation is a greater crime than mere vandalism.
I think the distinction is that if someone vandalizes your house/car/yard/whatever...you can just shrug it off as some random act of ugliness. Some drunk person or gang initiation or whatever randomly landed on your property...and probably won't return. It's not about YOU. It's frustrating, but you don't have to lose sleep over it.
A hate crime, on the other hand, is specifically targeted to YOU as a person. It's not just random chance, it's a personal attack on YOU. In a hate crime, vandalism of your home/car/yard/whatever is an attack on you by proxy. And you DO have to lose sleep over it, because you have been specifically targeted. And b/c it's often a precursor to more (and possibly escalated) attacks to come.
It's more serious and more scarring than simple damage to your stuff.
quote:
Originally posted by PonderInc
I think the distinction is that if someone vandalizes your house/car/yard/whatever...you can just shrug it off as some random act of ugliness. Some drunk person or gang initiation or whatever randomly landed on your property...and probably won't return. It's not about YOU. It's frustrating, but you don't have to lose sleep over it.
A hate crime, on the other hand, is specifically targeted to YOU as a person. It's not just random chance, it's a personal attack on YOU. In a hate crime, vandalism of your home/car/yard/whatever is an attack on you by proxy. And you DO have to lose sleep over it, because you have been specifically targeted. And b/c it's often a precursor to more (and possibly escalated) attacks to come.
It's more serious and more scarring than simple damage to your stuff.
- What you just said will also cover gang revenge attacks and gang driveby shootings, the gangs target someone but don't really hate that person it's just to "send a message" or to get even for something that person did to them. Street Gangs also target people with threats so they won't show up in court, or so they won't "snitch" on something they saw to police. Crimes like that then are not exactly hate crimes and not exactly a random act since a certain house or person is the target. That must fall into a gray area. Thses crimes are not "hate crimes" in a legal sense.[xx(][B)]
quote:
A crime is a crime and is covered under current laws. No crime is one of love, all crimes are hate. A criminal does not break into a house and steal that persons belongings out of love. A vandal does not do his deed because he's kind hearted and cares, he does it to be mean. -or so it seems to me.
I disagree with this. If a certain group is being targetted out of predjudice and bigotry, then I think there is something a little more heinous going on.
quote:
Originally posted by MDepr2007
Gotta love how being gay ends up being lined up with race and religion as being equal somehow[;)]
Oh come on. The gay population is discriminated against just like those of minority races and religions.
quote:
Originally posted by PonderInc
I think the distinction is that if someone vandalizes your house/car/yard/whatever...you can just shrug it off as some random act of ugliness. Some drunk person or gang initiation or whatever randomly landed on your property...and probably won't return. It's not about YOU. It's frustrating, but you don't have to lose sleep over it.
A hate crime, on the other hand, is specifically targeted to YOU as a person. It's not just random chance, it's a personal attack on YOU. In a hate crime, vandalism of your home/car/yard/whatever is an attack on you by proxy. And you DO have to lose sleep over it, because you have been specifically targeted. And b/c it's often a precursor to more (and possibly escalated) attacks to come.
It's more serious and more scarring than simple damage to your stuff.
Exactly. It is a different classification of crime, therefore it needs to be addressed as such.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
I have problem with the term "hate crime" because it only "exists" so to speak if you hate a group that is on a certain list. Sure, we can add Gay, Lesbian, Transvestite, Transexual, Bisexual and whatever else but we will still be saying "go ahead and pick another group and burn their houses down" because they aren't as important.
Classify hate crimes as something like this "acts of vandalism or terrorism perpetrated against a group of persons whose motive is hatred of a shared trait amongst the victims" Because as far as I'm concerned, if you are excluding groups from being "protected" like this, it seems silly to include any of them
Totally agree with you on this. Unfortunately it is not written this way, and gay persons are excluded from that protection list in 17 states currently.
quote:
Originally posted by TeeDub
quote:
Originally posted by azbadpuppy
Thank you for pointing out that gay persons should be entitled to the same rights and protections as everyone else. Currently, in Oklahoma, they are not.
Um, as a straight white male, gays are allowed EXACTLY the same protections as me. I think what you mean to say is that they are not "extra" protected by some funny legislation that deems it to be a worse crime for offending them.
I could care less that they may or may not have chosen their current sexual preference. Why should someone's sexual preference garner them any special treatment? Why should the police work harder when investigating gay crime than straight crime? I think that crime is crime, and that should be it. I hope whoever did it gets caught, just like if they did it to me. Having two sets of punishments is about as stupid and bigoted as you can get.
Very easy for you to say. You are protected under current OK law, and I am not. Tell me how that is 'equal'.
Because a crime against me handled the same way as a crime against gays...
It is handled as a crime.
Look, just because you need to be glad handed because you are gay doesn't mean the rest of us do. Stand up for yourself and quit trying to regulate the rest of us into thinking you are something special. Just because you like the warm embrace of a man doesn't mean that you should be treated any different than the rest of us.
quote:
Originally posted by BriefRighter[/i[:X]]
The hatred that is apparent from Oklahoma is the reason why I fight.
Not so fast there buddy. Texas has a looong way to go before it could be considered a 'tolerant' place to live. As far as the hate crime laws- yes, they do include gay persons in Texas. However, you have a governor that has basically said,in public, that if the gays don't like the way things are done in Texas they should live somewhere else. Texas also has some of the most anti-gay legislation in the country.
I appreciate you putting up the good fight, as I try to do as well, but lets not try to say Texas is less hateful than Oklahoma towards gay people because it is simply not true.
quote:
Originally posted by TeeDub
Because a crime against me handled the same way as a crime against gays...
It is handled as a crime.
Look, just because you need to be glad handed because you are gay doesn't mean the rest of us do. Stand up for yourself and quit trying to regulate the rest of us into thinking you are something special. Just because you like the warm embrace of a man doesn't mean that you should be treated any different than the rest of us.
Wrong again. First of all this crime is irrelevant in your case because you are (I am assuming)not gay. But if it had been committed against you because you are (I am assuming) white, then you would be protected under the law. Who obviously is being treated like a second class citizen?? (Hint: Not You)
And just because you have a personal problem with gay people doesn't give you the right to say who does and doesn't deserve equal protection under the law. I don't consider myself any more 'special' than anyone else, but I do expect equal protection and representation from my government.
Yeah, I'm so glad I get so much 'special treatment' in this country- I certainly do feel the love.
quote:
Originally posted by azbadpuppy
Wrong again. First of all this crime is irrelevant in your case because you are (I am assuming)not gay. But if it had been committed against you because you are (I am assuming) white, then you would be protected under the law. Who obviously is being treated like a second class citizen?? (Hint: Not You)
And just because you have a personal problem with gay people doesn't give you the right to say who does and doesn't deserve equal protection under the law. I don't consider myself any more 'special' than anyone else, but I do expect equal protection and representation from my government.
Yeah, I'm so glad I get so much 'special treatment' in this country- I certainly do feel the love.
I don't think you understand what qualifies as a hate crime. Did you bother reading the relevant law?
If someone sprays "I am going to kill you ***hole" on my garage, it is not a hate crime. Those people clearly hate me, intend to intimidate me into moving and should be dealt with accordingly. What you want is if someone threatens a gay man, they should get worse penalties. That is in every sense of the word discriminatory to me, a hetro white male. If I am an atheist, should that qualify for hate crime too? How about if I am poor or rich, should those qualify for hate crime legislation? Why don't we just lump everyone in and just say the punishment for that crime is now harsher, to be fair to absolutely everyone.
quote:
Originally posted by lockers
quote:
Originally posted by azbadpuppy
Wrong again. First of all this crime is irrelevant in your case because you are (I am assuming)not gay. But if it had been committed against you because you are (I am assuming) white, then you would be protected under the law. Who obviously is being treated like a second class citizen?? (Hint: Not You)
And just because you have a personal problem with gay people doesn't give you the right to say who does and doesn't deserve equal protection under the law. I don't consider myself any more 'special' than anyone else, but I do expect equal protection and representation from my government.
Yeah, I'm so glad I get so much 'special treatment' in this country- I certainly do feel the love.
I don't think you understand what qualifies as a hate crime. Did you bother reading the relevant law?
If someone sprays "I am going to kill you ***hole" on my garage, it is not a hate crime. Those people clearly hate me, intend to intimidate me into moving and should be dealt with accordingly. What you want is if someone threatens a gay man, they should get worse penalties. That is in every sense of the word discriminatory to me, a hetro white male. If I am an atheist, should that qualify for hate crime too? How about if I am poor or rich, should those qualify for hate crime legislation? Why don't we just lump everyone in and just say the punishment for that crime is now harsher, to be fair to absolutely everyone.
If someone spraypainted "I'm going to kill you a**hole" on anyone's garage (even a gay person's) it would not be considered a hate crime, unless of course being an 'a**hole' is now considered a religion or race, and you are indeed an a**hole.
If someone spraypainted "I'm going to kill you friendly fellow" and it can be shown that the crime was committed based on the fact that the victim is gay then yes it is a hate crime and should be dealt with as such. Unfortunately, in Oklahoma and many other states this is not the case.
If someone threatens you and commits a crime against you based on the fact that you are white, it is a hate crime. Therefore you are protected, in Oklahoma and every other state. Get it? You are not the one being discriminated against!
I absolutely agree that every person in this country should be covered by hate crime laws, and that there should be no special list. Unfortunately there is a list and not everyone is on it. Thats the entire point.
quote:
Originally posted by TeeDub
Just because you like the warm embrace of a man doesn't mean that you should be treated any different than the rest of us.
Thank you. I couldn't agree with you more.
quote:
Originally posted by azbadpuppy
I absolutely agree that every person in this country should be covered by hate crime laws, and that there should be no special list. Unfortunately there is a list and not everyone is on it. Thats the entire point.
I am pretty sure I didn't say everybody should be covered by hate crime laws. I am really sure I said that there should be no hate crime laws. I understand that you consider yourself a special snowflake, but the truth is your not. You don't deserve special attention. Crime is crime regardless of the "why". I know you want to belittle crime against others to elevate crime against your in group. Just stop telling everyone that it isn't what you want. You are just that transparent.
quote:
Originally posted by lockers
quote:
Originally posted by azbadpuppy
I absolutely agree that every person in this country should be covered by hate crime laws, and that there should be no special list. Unfortunately there is a list and not everyone is on it. Thats the entire point.
I am pretty sure I didn't say everybody should be covered by hate crime laws. I am really sure I said that there should be no hate crime laws. I understand that you consider yourself a special snowflake, but the truth is your not. You don't deserve special attention. Crime is crime regardless of the "why". I know you want to belittle crime against others to elevate crime against your in group. Just stop telling everyone that it isn't what you want. You are just that transparent.
Wow, you are so smart- you gots me all figured out.
You understand nothing, except whats in your feeble, bigoted, closed little mind. Therefore, there's nothing more to discuss with you.
Even being the target of hate, though no "crime" has been committed, can be hurtful.
A stalker may not actually physically hurt you or your property, but if they...
"" Actually causes the person being followed or harassed to feel terrorized, frightened, intimidated, threatened, harassed, or molested, upon conviction, shall be guilty of the crime of stalking, which is a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one (1) year or by a fine of not more than One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00), or by both such fine and imprisonment.""
I think intent and motivation do matter.
There is a difference between whether or not you had your windows bashed out because of some random act of vandalism and having your windows bashed out because your a Jew or gay. You feel differently when that happens to you if you are targeted in that manner. Also a society should not be lax and treat such matters the same. It should find that such crimes are more aggregious and not just treat them the same as any other act of vandalism. "Oh, its not that big a deal, its just a broken window."
Also, the intent of a hate crime isnt just to hurt one individual, they are targeting it against everyone in that particular group. Plus they are not just causing property damage, or threatening bodily harm, its you, and the targeted groups, right to exist that is being threatened with the crime and its intent.
Graffiti isnt something that we throw the book at someone for, but if a swastika was sprayed on a Jewish temple,,, there is an obvious, targeted, hatred behind that crime and the person would be punished more severely. Likewise, a lynching would be punished more severely than a regular homicide. We already do recognize hate crimes and punish them more severely.
Intent can be more important than the action. A murder can be classified as self-defense or premeditated based upon intent. Though the action and the results are the same, ALONG WITH the crime itself, intent is an important factor in determining punishment.
It ironic that the crime committed against someone who is gay, because they are gay, is itself an act of not treating a person, or group of persons, equally. So though some people are being targeted unequally, people want the law to treat the crime as if it were equal and the criminal as if they are treating all groups equally.
One intent of hate crime laws is to try and make everyone equally safe and protected, to say as a society, we think the intent behind this crime is worse than the same act without that intent. We shouldnt want any crime to happen to anyone and SHOULD feel strongly about it. But some crimes and intents are worse than others.
It's really sad that there are still so many people from the dark ages out there.
I think everyone should be protected by hate crime laws.
When someone destroys your stuff, writes threats on your property it's pretty obvious they hate you.
Not being able to treat the situation for what it is makes Oklahoma look stupid and backwards.
Criminal acts are already illegal.
If they really want to do something about it, defend yourselves. There is a reason our fore-fathers gave us the 2nd amendment.
quote:
Originally posted by TeeDub
Criminal acts are already illegal.
If they really want to do something about it, defend yourselves. There is a reason our fore-fathers gave us the 2nd amendment.
oh come on. that is some libertarian thoughtless bull****.
quote:
Originally posted by azbadpuppy
Wow, you are so smart- you gots me all figured out.
You understand nothing, except whats in your feeble, bigoted, closed little mind. Therefore, there's nothing more to discuss with you.
Now that is rich. I am the bigot becuase I don't support unequal treatment of individuals? I suppose you think that telling people they are close minded is in some way making an argument. I can see that you simply don't have any real response and I was on the money. Congrats on being a internet jackass.
quote:
Originally posted by lockers
quote:
Originally posted by azbadpuppy
Wow, you are so smart- you gots me all figured out.
You understand nothing, except whats in your feeble, bigoted, closed little mind. Therefore, there's nothing more to discuss with you.
Now that is rich. I am the bigot becuase I don't support unequal treatment of individuals? I suppose you think that telling people they are close minded is in some way making an argument. I can see that you simply don't have any real response and I was on the money. Congrats on being a internet jackass.
No, you are a bigot because you
do support unequal treatment of individuals. I am not making an argument that you are closed minded- you have already proven that fact.
My responses on this issue have been numerous, if you had bothered to read anything before you started posting your ignorant, bullying replies. Like I said before, there is nothing left to discuss with you.
quote:
Originally posted by azbadpuppy
No, you are a bigot because you do support unequal treatment of individuals. I am not making an argument that you are closed minded- you have already proven that fact.
My responses on this issue have been numerous, if you had bothered to read anything before you started posting your ignorant, bullying replies. Like I said before, there is nothing left to discuss with you.
It's okay lockers.
Don't worry about it, logic seems to mean nothing to azbad unless you are willing to give favorable treatment to people based on their sexual preferences.
quote:
Originally posted by azbadpuppy
No, you are a bigot because you do support unequal treatment of individuals. I am not making an argument that you are closed minded- you have already proven that fact.
My responses on this issue have been numerous, if you had bothered to read anything before you started posting your ignorant, bullying replies. Like I said before, there is nothing left to discuss with you.
Again, you resort to name calling. If I don't agree that your narrow solution is the only fix to a legitimate issue, you call me an offensive adjective. Not only does this undermine your position, it makes other, more reasonable and educated people who support your cause, look bad. You make the rest of us progressives appear to be entitlement seeking and hypocritical. By all means, continue to imagine that your choice of personal insult over reasoned debate is going to promote your ill-conceived crusade.
Sorry that I haven't kept up with the blog that I started. I've been in constant meetings dealing with my Oil and Gas clients who have been affected by the SemGroup bankruptcy.
In response to the post that Texas governor has, in essence if not in fact, told the GLBT community to find somewhere else to live, my experience has been that, in the Metroplex, the community is very accepting and, in fact, adopts a laissez faire approach.
As a matter of fact, and what will undoubtedly inspire more discussion, both my husband and I are members of Log Cabin Republicans. We feel that it is important to attempt to change the views of the ignorant from the inside. While we do agree with the Republican stance on most issues of government, taxes, and social programs, we certainly disagree with the official view on gays.
However, it must be understood that the attitude of most people who are "anti-gay" is based on some antiquated belief in a transliteration of the Bible. (Specifically Leviticus). As a Jew, I can tell you that a selective reading, by most Christians, is dead wrong. If you're going to decry homosexuality as a mortal sin, then you must also decry people who have been divorced and remarried as mortal sinners, as well as those who eat pork and shellfish, and those that do not keep Saturday as the Sabbath.
I will stop before I go into a religious diatribe over the different interpretations of the Torah.
Shalom.
quote:
Originally posted by BriefRighter
Sorry that I haven't kept up with the blog that I started. I've been in constant meetings dealing with my Oil and Gas clients who have been affected by the SemGroup bankruptcy.
In response to the post that Texas governor has, in essence if not in fact, told the GLBT community to find somewhere else to live, my experience has been that, in the Metroplex, the community is very accepting and, in fact, adopts a laissez faire approach.
As a matter of fact, and what will undoubtedly inspire more discussion, both my husband and I are members of Log Cabin Republicans. We feel that it is important to attempt to change the views of the ignorant from the inside. While we do agree with the Republican stance on most issues of government, taxes, and social programs, we certainly disagree with the official view on gays.
However, it must be understood that the attitude of most people who are "anti-gay" is based on some antiquated belief in a transliteration of the Bible. (Specifically Leviticus). As a Jew, I can tell you that a selective reading, by most Christians, is dead wrong. If you're going to decry homosexuality as a mortal sin, then you must also decry people who have been divorced and remarried as mortal sinners, as well as those who eat pork and shellfish, and those that do not keep Saturday as the Sabbath.
I will stop before I go into a religious diatribe over the different interpretations of the Torah.
Shalom.
Thank you for your post, and thank you for fighting the fight for justice, as I and millions of other americans do every day. Eventually we will prevail, just like the civil rights movement in the 60's, and numerous others. I firmly believe that people who actually use their brain and know what is right, rather that following some brainwashing ideas formed by religious zealots, will get the laws changed and create an equal and just society for all of us. It really doesn't matter what the haters think- they will not win.