|
Grex > Glb > #37: gay bashers in the news again (long -- 163 lines) |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 404 responses total. |
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*
|
senna
|
|
response 52 of 404:
|
Oct 16 21:19 UTC 1998 |
Uh, brighn, one hates and the other doesn't. The gulf is pretty big.
but thanks for mentioning that those who use violence are a small extreme
fringe group. Kinda like NWROC.
Steve, what evidence are you basing this on? Second degree murder is not
premeditated. Thus it is, essentially, the heat of passion.
|
scg
|
|
response 53 of 404:
|
Oct 16 22:00 UTC 1998 |
I'm basing this on what I was told in my high school law class, about homocide
laws in Michigan (which may or may not be the same as in Wyoming).
You are right that second degree murder is not premeditated, and as such could
be seen as impulsive. If you just happened to be carrying a gun, and saw
somebody and impulsively, without thinking about it much, but without any
reason to be angry at them, decided to kill them, that would be second degree
murder. Why anybody would do that, I don't know. "In the heat of passion"
implies being in a rage, while non premeditated but with intent to kill
implies a more cold blooded, if not well thought out, act.
Getting a jury to believe that somebody was in enough of a rage that they
didn't have much control over their desire to kill somebody is probably
somewhat difficult. Proving that somebody planned ahead to kill somebody,
instead of just deciding to do it, can also be difficult without evidence to
support it. As such, I would imagine that second degree murder is probably
just the default in a lot of cases that really might fit either first degree
murder or first degree manslaughter.
|
orinoco
|
|
response 54 of 404:
|
Oct 16 22:55 UTC 1998 |
senna - last I heard, hatred is perfectly legal if you keep it to yourself.
|
aruba
|
|
response 55 of 404:
|
Oct 17 03:30 UTC 1998 |
Re #52: I hate gulfs too! Actually, I don't see the gulf you're talking
about. It seems to me that both the Klan and NWROC (or whoever the hell the
core group behind them really is) are both populated by pretty hateful
people.
|
janc
|
|
response 56 of 404:
|
Oct 17 03:47 UTC 1998 |
I'd heard on NPR that there was a Baptist Church had put up a web page
calling on people to hold an anti-gay protest at Shepard's funeral.
They said something about Shepard's murder being proof that
homosexuality is a sin.
I was curious enough to go look for this page. I found a link on yahoo
saying:
Westboro Baptist Church Press Release - from a group which plans to
picket Matthew Shepard's funeral. (Contains strongly anti-gay
language.)
The link was to "http:/www.godhatesfags.com/shepard.gif". Follow the
link and you find:
TEENAGE SLUTS! TEENAGER SLUTS IS THE RAUNCHIEST TEEN FUCKSITE ON
THE NET. NOWHERE ON THE NET WILL YOU FIND SUCH HARDCORE IMAGES OF
SUCH YOUNG GIRLS. NO GIRL ON THE ENTIRE SITE IS OLDER THAN 19!!
Yup, it's a hardcore porn site, receiving the best advertising it could
ever have hoped for. Hackers 1, Baptists 0.
|
brighn
|
|
response 57 of 404:
|
Oct 17 13:43 UTC 1998 |
I've been in conversations with pro-lifers. Some of them hate. Big time.
Stop deluding yourself.
|
nsiddall
|
|
response 58 of 404:
|
Oct 17 15:49 UTC 1998 |
Those funeral protestors must be pretty close to insane. Well, they are
providing a valuable service by completely discrediting the anti-gay
movement.
As for this hate crime law question--Brighn's response 37 makes a lot of
sense. I am instinctively resistant to the common impulse to try to
improve society through more and more complicated laws. The people who do
this kind of thing are so degraded that I doubt they are going to be
affected by nuances of the legal code anyway. And it seems wierd that you
could end up saying this crime would be less horrible if it weren't a
"hate crime". What if Shepard wasn't gay, and they just killed him
because he was a dorky kid they didn't like--isn't that just as bad? But
maybe the difference is that the hate crime is no worse for the victim,
but worse for society. Other gay kids are traumatized by the crime,
because they are thinking it could happen to them next; it makes them feel
targeted...while if Shepard had been killed for some other "reason" it
might not have the same effect of making members of whatever group he
belonged to feel vulnerable. I can see this distinction, but I'm not sure
how it should be treated in law.
|
katie
|
|
response 59 of 404:
|
Oct 17 16:35 UTC 1998 |
I was told today, and I'm not sure I believe it, that the Baptist church
in question has a web page at www.wehatefags or some such. Can this
really be?
/
|
danr
|
|
response 60 of 404:
|
Oct 17 17:09 UTC 1998 |
Neither www.wehatefags.org, .com, nor .net is a good URL.
|
janc
|
|
response 61 of 404:
|
Oct 17 20:49 UTC 1998 |
Yahoo and Hotbot both agree that the URL for the Westboro Baptist Church
in Topeka Kansas is www.godhatesfags.com, but that site has somehow been
replaced www.liveerotica.com.
Gleened from elsewhere on the net:
Westboro Baptist Church is led by Rev Fred Phelps, and has been pursuing
"a ministry of public religious pickets" in public places since 1991.
This church should not be confused with your ordinary run of the mill
Baptists. All the members are apparantly members of the Phelps family,
and they all live in a compound surrounded by a 12-foot chain link
fence. Fred Phelps collects the paychecks of all members, extracts his
"tithe" and distributes the remainder as he sees fit. The basic message
of their pickets is "God Hates Fags." They regularly picket gay rights
rallies, and funerals of gays and of AIDS victims, but they will also
picket any place they can get media attention - they picketed Bill
Clinton's mother's funeral.
The leadership of another Topeka church, St. David's Episcopal Church
criticized the picketing in 1995, leading to their church becoming the
target of the picketer with signs reading "Fag Church" (anyone who
disagrees with Phelps is a "fag," "whore," "bastard," or "bull dyke").
The Episcopalians counter-picketed, and took the Baptist picketers to
court to get a restraining order. The case went to the Supreme Court,
which found against the Phelps Church.
Bottom line: this is a nut-cult, not in any way your typical Baptist
Church. Their opinions are definately disgusting, but not very
representative of any mainstream christian movement.
|