|
Grex > Glb > #37: gay bashers in the news again (long -- 163 lines) |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 404 responses total. |
senna
|
|
response 27 of 404:
| 
Oct 14 19:13 UTC 1998 |
The problem I have is that the phrase "hate crime" can be used as an
inflammatory tag to railroad people into punishments they don't deserve. It
can be (and, if I recall correctly, has been) used as a political tool. Hate
crimes are terrible, along with any other kind of crime. However, using that
phrase tends to make people begin to lose sight of facts.
|
gypsi
|
|
response 28 of 404:
|
Oct 14 21:31 UTC 1998 |
Brighn - I have to agree with you. Reading erotic lit turns me on,
but pornos make me sick.
|
fitz
|
|
response 29 of 404:
|
Oct 14 22:57 UTC 1998 |
Question related to this topic: My wife said that K. Couric on the Today
show implied that James Dobson was culpable for this incident, an accusation
that gained Mr. Dobson rebuttal time on the Today show. I have searched the
Web and sever newspaper archives, but I can't find anything to substantiate
this incident. Anyone know something about this?
|
johnnie
|
|
response 30 of 404:
|
Oct 15 01:34 UTC 1998 |
and in further news of the nasty people in the world:
Anti-gay church plans demonstration at funeral
Meanwhile, the Rev. Fred Phelps, the leader of a Topeka, Kansas, church
whose members regularly engage in anti-homosexual picketing, said he
was planning a demonstration at Shepard's funeral.
Gov. Jim Geringer said he cannot stop Phelps from coming, but said
precautions would be taken to make sure Friday's services are not
interrupted. Geringer said Phelps' group is "just flat not welcome. What
we don't need is a bunch of wing nuts coming in."
Phelps said he had asked for protection from the Wyoming governor's
office because his church had received at least seven death threats
since word spread his pickets would be going to Laramie. "We're not
going to tolerate any violence from these homosexuals," Phelps
said. "They are the most violent people in the world. Here they are
talking about what happened to this poor boy, and they turn around and
make death threats against us."
|
scg
|
|
response 31 of 404:
|
Oct 15 04:35 UTC 1998 |
Yuck.
|
senna
|
|
response 32 of 404:
|
Oct 15 05:11 UTC 1998 |
Doesn't sound like a normal church to me.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 33 of 404:
|
Oct 15 05:23 UTC 1998 |
"wing nuts"?
Sounds like a "hate" church. Maybe it has a connection with Milosovec.
|
gypsi
|
|
response 34 of 404:
|
Oct 15 05:46 UTC 1998 |
Why would a church protest a funeral for crying out loud?
|
aruba
|
|
response 35 of 404:
|
Oct 15 15:29 UTC 1998 |
Re #20: So are you saying, Rane, that there is some legal concept of a
"purposeful motive"? I am pretty foggy on the finer legal points here. If
this is not a legal term, then do you just mean that there are certain motives
that a judge/jury will find credible, and others that they won't? If so I'm
not clear on what a law would do to change that.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 36 of 404:
|
Oct 15 16:08 UTC 1998 |
The difference between first and second degree murder is motive (or lack
thereof). Manslaughter is murder without motive. There is some slight
difference between manslaughter and wrongful-death, which lies in motive.
|
brighn
|
|
response 37 of 404:
|
Oct 15 17:03 UTC 1998 |
Here is my stance on hate crimes:
Hate crimes have two elements: The crime itself, and the underlying hate-based
motivation. If the crime itself is illegal already, making it illegal again
is redundant; if it isn't already illegal, it shouldn't be *just* because of
the motivation. The underlying motivation is protected by the First Amendment.
Therefore we shouldn't have specific "hate crime" laws.
When a member of the KKK burns a cross on the lawn of somebody they don't
like, they're doing the following:
(1) Destroying property
(2) Recklessly endangering themselves, their victims, and innocent bystanders
(3) Trespassing
(4) Threatening/extorting
(5) Saying, "I don't like you."
(1)-(4) are all illegal independent of the motivation of the act.
(5) is protected by the First Amendment.
(For those who are confused by the statement that "if the crime isn't already
illegal...", I'm referring to hate crimes that are not illegal indepent of
the hate crime legislation. Things like, for instance, shouting at a group
of gays, "Hey, you faggots! Go away!")
|
scg
|
|
response 38 of 404:
|
Oct 15 17:44 UTC 1998 |
The homocide laws, as I understand them, are:
First Degree Murder: intentional and premeditated
Felony Murder: a death happens as a result of another felony
Second Degree Murder: intentional, but not planned ahead of time.
First Degree Manslaughter: intentional, "in the heat of passion."
Second Degree Manslaughter: accidental, but preventable.
Justifiable homocide: intentional, but justified. Not a crime.
Excusable Homocide: accidental and unavoidable. Also not a crime.
Felony Murder would cover cases such as a bank robbery where the robbers may
not have planned to kill anybody, but killed somebody anyway. Felony murder
gets treated as first degree murder.
First Degree Manslaughter covers cases where somebody gets very angry at
somebody else, and kills them. The example given in my high school law class
would be where somebody comes home and finds his wife in bed with another man,
and kills one or both of them (although maybe that would now be considered
domestic violence and taken more seriously). The idea there is that if it's
done in immediate anger it's assumed to been less malicious, or something like
that.
Second Degree Manslaughter would cover somebody who did something by accident
that should have been avoidable, and caused a death. Deaths in traffic
accidents often fall into this category.
Justifiable homocide covers things like self defense. It's not illegal,
assuming you can convince the police or judge or jury that that was what was
going on.
Excusable Homocide covers situations such as somebody driving, obeying all
traffic laws, when somebody jumped two feet in front of their car and they
couldn't stop in time. Again, it's not illegal.
At least, that's my memory of things from my high school law class. Hopefully
one of the lawyers here will jump in and correct me where this is wrong.
I suppose what hate crime legislation could do is move something like this
case, where the people who did it are claiming to have been angry at their
victim for making a pass at them, from something that could be argued to have
been in the heat of passion, and therefore first degree manslaughter, to
something that would clearly be Felony Murder.
|
jep
|
|
response 39 of 404:
|
Oct 15 19:08 UTC 1998 |
#37 is pretty close to how I see things, too.
|
brighn
|
|
response 40 of 404:
|
Oct 15 23:14 UTC 1998 |
Frankly, I think if the purpose of punishment is to prevent repetition (and
that *is* one of the alleged functions), then first degree manslaughter should
have the STIFFEST penalty. I might kill my wife after months of plotting, and
never kill anyone again, but if I kill in a rage, I clearly have little
control over myself and am more likely to do it again.
But that's neither here not there. =} We don't live in a world of what laws
should be, we live in a world of what laws are. While I can see your point,
Steve, it feels like a slippery slope, the whole "hate crime" thing. If my
victim's different from me at all, somebody could say it's a hate crime...
different race, gender, handicap, language, culture, state, alma mater, eye
color, etc.
|
lumen
|
|
response 41 of 404:
|
Oct 16 02:12 UTC 1998 |
Hrm. I heard about this at the G.A.L.A. meeting first.
Yes, hate crime is a bit of a flag-- murder is wrong no matter how you slice
it.
But I think the issue is the burning question of why people feel threatened
by gay people to the point they should murder them. Maybe murderers just are
a separate class of folks-- so many of them are sick puppies anyways..
|
aruba
|
|
response 42 of 404:
|
Oct 16 02:20 UTC 1998 |
OK, if Rane and scg's assessment of what hate crime legislation would do is
correct, then I understand now. Thanks.
|
i
|
|
response 43 of 404:
|
Oct 16 02:32 UTC 1998 |
My impression is that hate crime laws usually move the underlying crime
up the severity scale a notch or two. This is generally reasonable. A
bunch of people with "Baby Killers Will Burn In Hell" signs tramping
around on the lawn of someone who runs a family planning clinic are
much more of a threat to the peace than a similar bunch trespassing
because it's a shortcut into a popular park. Even is a 1st degree
murder case, i suspect that the prosecution would find the hate crime
law useful - especially if there are any weakness in their case.
|
other
|
|
response 44 of 404:
|
Oct 16 03:53 UTC 1998 |
laws should not be made to facilitate prosecution.
that is the basis for the development of a police state.
if the justice system is broken, fix it. don't make new laws because you
can't enforce the old ones.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 45 of 404:
|
Oct 16 04:37 UTC 1998 |
The law would not be made to *faciliate* prosecution - it would be made
to change the legally defined seriousness of a crime. That is all laws
do in every case, without exception.
|
brighn
|
|
response 46 of 404:
|
Oct 16 04:59 UTC 1998 |
#43> You mention disturbing the peace. That's already a crime that the
pro-life protestors in your example are violating, that the park-goers aren't.
Gay-bashers have a right to hate bays. Pro-lifers have a right to hate
abortion. (to hate gays, not bays) This right is constitutionally
protected.They have the right to express that belief in a peacable manner.
Hate crime laws are a major step towards limiting what beliefs we can and
can't express.
We also have a pattern over the last few decades of invoking these PC laws
for the "oppressed" and not for ALL victims... a black victim of KKK violence
is more likely to be held up as a martyr than a white victim of black
militance. Look what happened in Grex' own Ann Arbor only a year or so back...
the KKK held a peacable rally, and were shut down by liberal rocks and
screams. There was little outcry that the Klansman's right to speak was being
violated. Would hate crime legislation have been invoked if a Klansman had
been injured by a hurtled rock? I doubt it, very much.
We have laws to protect people injured by violent crimes, terrorism,
extortion, threats, etc. We don't need to throw our Free Speech rights out
the window because some queer can't handle being called a faggot or a dyke.
|
senna
|
|
response 47 of 404:
|
Oct 16 05:39 UTC 1998 |
Pro-lifers and Gay-haters are *vastly* different.
If someone kills in the heat of passion, that's second degree murder.
manslaughter in the first degree is when you intentionally take an action that
kills someone, but was not intended to kill them.
|
scg
|
|
response 48 of 404:
|
Oct 16 05:48 UTC 1998 |
Killing in the heat of passion is first degree manslaughter. Depending on
the action that inadvertently kills somebody, that's either felony murder or
second degree manslaughter. There may be some category of actions in between
those that might be first degree manslaughter, but I'm not sure about that.
|
brighn
|
|
response 49 of 404:
|
Oct 16 13:46 UTC 1998 |
Why are pro-lifers and gay-bashers vastly different?
When they kill, they murderers.
When they don't kill, they're people with opinions.
When they use violence, they're sending out the message to anyone who falls
into the class they're victimizing that they're potential victims of similar
treatment.
I see no real difference between pro-lifers and people who hate gays,
considering (frankly) there's a lot of overlap between the two.
Gay-haters is not a small, exclusive set of sociopaths. The politos who voted
for the DOMA were showing contempt for gays. The politicos who forced Clinton
to rescind his gay military policy were showing their contempt for gays. Most
states in this country have anti-gay legislation for marraige, and many have
anti-gay legislation for sex. By regularly and consistently classifying gays
as second class citizens, the politicos have sanctioned anti-gay hate crimes,
and now they want to ban the very crimes they've created a climate to
encourage?
The pro-lifers who use violence are a small fringe group among pro-lifers.
The gay-haters who use violence are a small fringe group among gay-haters.
Where's the difference?
Or is the difference that you're one and not the other, and don't like being
characterized as intolerant? *wry smirk*
|
aruba
|
|
response 50 of 404:
|
Oct 16 19:52 UTC 1998 |
Green Bay SUCKS!
Tampa Bay SUCKS!
Damn, I hate bays. BTW a klanswoman *was* hurt by a flying rock in Ann Arbor
two years ago. The Klan sued the city for failing to provide adequate
protection, but their case was thrown out of court.
|
brighn
|
|
response 51 of 404:
|
Oct 16 20:49 UTC 1998 |
I'm rather partial to Bay City, though.
My point was demonstrated, then, Mark. A savage Hate Criminal roams the
streets of Ann Arbor as we speak, unpunished by the oppressive system.
*g*
|