Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2016/09/08 21:24:35
Subject: Blue Lives Matter Law Used for First Time
New Orleans police arrested a man this week and charged him with a hate crime and other offenses after police say he damaged a window at a French Quarter hotel and then shouted slurs at a witness and officers, according to the man's arrest warrant.
It appears to be the first time Louisiana's so-called "blue lives matter" provision has been used to charge someone with a hate crime involving police officers, according to the Anti-defamation League.
Police say Raul Delatoba shouted racial and gender slurs at a witness and NOPD officers after damaging a window at the Royal Sonesta.
Raul Delatoba, 34, was booked Monday (Sept. 5) on charges of simple criminal damage to property, disturbing the peace and a felony-level hate crime, his arrest warrant says. During his arrest, but after he had broken the window, Delatoba is accused of using sexist and racial slurs against police officers, the document shows.
The regional director of the Anti-defamation League, an organization that trains law enforcement agencies to enforce hate crimes, said she does not believe a hate crime occurred in this incident, based on the circumstances described in Delatoba's warrant.
Allison Padilla-Goodman, the group's director, said she believes Delatoba is possibly the first person charged with a hate crime under the "blue lives matter" provision the Legislature recently added to the state's hate crime law. The provision adds law enforcement occupation to the list of targeted victims for which a hate crime applies.
'Blue Lives Matter' bill heads to Louisiana Senate
'Blue Lives Matter' bill heads to Louisiana Senate
The Louisiana Senate will take up a bill to make attacks on law enforcement officers, firefighters, and emergency medical services personnel hate crimes in state law.
According to arrest documents, Delatoba was drunk and banging on a window at the Royal Sonesta Hotel, 300 Bourbon St. around 5:15 a.m. Monday, when a witness who heard the banging told him to stop. Delatoba's warrant says he yelled at the witness, "calling him a n-----."
That witness, a security guard who works at a nearby building's mezzanine, along with a security supervisor for the Royal Sonesta, flagged down two Louisiana State Troopers who then escorted Delatoba to NOPD's 8th District station, the warrant states. Once at the station, the warrant states, Delatoba began to verbally "attack members of the New Orleans Police Dept." The warrant states Delatoba called one female officer a "dumb a-- c---" and another officer a "dumb a-- n-----."
The warrant states Sgt. S. Jackson instructed NOPD Officer Williams Knowles to charge Delatoba with a hate crime in addition to damaging property and disturbing the peace. "The hate crime charge stems from Delatoba's attack on individuals based on their race, sex, and occupation," the warrant states.
A police officer and the security guard who worked at a nearby building are listed as victims in the case, along with the Royal Sonesta and the state of Louisiana.
Lindsey Hortenstine, a spokeswoman for the Orleans Public Defender's office, declined Wednesday to comment on Delatoba's case, noting OPD typically does not comment on open cases.
Defining hate crimes in Louisiana
Padilla-Goodman, who directs the Anti-Defamation League for Louisiana, Mississippi and Arkansas, said after consulting with the group's attorney that she does not believe the incident qualifies as a hate crime because the verbal attack on police officers — "while it's horrible" — does not connect to an underlying crime.
She said the Royal Sonesta window does not appear to have been targeted in relation to the security guard Delatoba is accused of calling by a racial slur or the police officers at the 8th District station, based on information in the warrant.
Louisiana's hate crime statute makes it illegal to commit specific "underlying offenses" when the victim of those offenses is selected because of their race, religion, sexual orientation, gender, nationality, age, or because of their "actual or perceived employment as a law enforcement officer, firefighter, or emergency medical services personnel."
The underlying offenses listed in the law range in seriousness from simple criminal damage to property, such as vandalism or breaking a window, to murder.
"Proving a hate crime is tough," said Padilla-Goodman, noting the motive of the underlying crime is key.
If the underlying offense is a felony, a hate crime can tack on an additional five years in prison and a $5,000 fine, Louisiana law states. If the underlying offense is a misdemeanor, a hate crime can tack on an addition six months in jail and a $500 fine.
harris.jpgLouisiana Rep. Lance Harris, R-Alexandria
'Blue lives matter' law's sponsor says use at discretion of prosecutors
The sponsor of the "blue lives matter" legislation, State Rep. Lance Harris, R-Alexandria, said he pushed for the provision to give district attorneys "an extra tool in (their) toolbox" and offer additional protection for first responders. The change to the law received wide, bipartisan support in the legislature.
Harris said he was not aware if the law enforcement provision he helped add to the hate crimes statute had been used in Louisiana yet. Whether the police officer provision in the hate crime law applies in this case or in others, Harris said Wednesday, would be "left up to the DA's interpretation."
Leston Smith, the security guard listed in Delatoba's booking records as a victim in the incident, said Wednesday he parks his car near the Royal Sonesta for work and was near there when he heard and saw a man believed to be banging on the hotel's window. Smith said Delatoba was "stumbling everywhere," and called Smith a racial slur.
Assistant District Attorney Christopher Bowman, spokesman for Orleans Parish District Attorney Leon Cannizzaro's Office, said the office will review the police report and interview victims and witnesses before moving forward with any prosecution.
"Based up on that review, the office will make a determination whether or not to initiate formal charges, and which charges to initiate," Bowman said.
NOPD spokesman Tyler Gamble said the department did not have any comment on the arrest.
Delatoba was not in court Tuesday (Sept. 7) during his scheduled first appearance hearing. Lindsay Jeffrey, an attorney with the Orleans Public Defenders office, said Orleans Parish Sheriff's Office deputies indicated Delatoba was detoxing at the jail.
Magistrate Judge Harry Cantrell on Tuesday set Delatoba's bond at $15,000 — $10,000 for the hate crime charge and $2,500 each for the charges of disturbing the peace and simple criminal damage to property. Court records show Delatoba was taken to court Wednesday morning and notified of his bond.
Anti-Defamation League opposes provision
Padilla-Goodman said the Anti-Defamation League this spring did not support the proposed legislation adding law enforcement officers to the list of targeted victims in the hate crime statute.
She said enhanced penalties already exist for crimes against law enforcement officers. "As a society we take those crimes very, very seriously," she said. Moreover, the group worried that adding another variable, such as occupation, could water down the hate crimes law.
Even before law enforcement officers were targeted in killings in Dallas and Baton Rouge, Padilla-Goodman said, she could understand why law enforcement officers would "feel under siege." The "truly horrific" events of this summer, though, have not changed the league's stance on the change to Louisiana's hate crime law, she said.
However, since law enforcement and other first-responder occupations have been added to the law, the organization has embraced it and incorporated the new provision into their hate crimes training programs for law enforcement officers, she said.
The spirit of hate crimes laws are not intended to "outlaw free speech or thought," said Padilla-Goodman.
"While it's horrible that the law enforcement officers had to encounter this behavior and hear these epithets," she said of the incident involving Delatoba, "it's not illegal."
The Anti-Defamation League is partnering with the FBI on Friday to host a symposium at Xavier University titled "Why Hate Crimes Matter."
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/08 21:25:26
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2016/09/08 21:42:44
Subject: Blue Lives Matter Law Used for First Time
"Hate Crime" laws are utter BS. No law should protect any group or class from words they don't like to hear.
I don't have a particularly high view of the Anti-Defamation League. Not that it has anything to do with Semitism, I am very much a Zionist, but their hate law shenanigans are often cringe worthy.
Indeed the safest road to Hell is the gradual one—the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts. - C.S. Lewis
2016/09/08 22:12:15
Subject: Blue Lives Matter Law Used for First Time
djones520 wrote: I've been very outspoken against these laws. Their bs. Just like any hate crime law.
There should be no protected classes. The law is applied equally to every citizen. Or it should be at least.
IMO, there is a clear need for having protected classes in many cases even today.... Being a cop is not one of them.
You can choose to be a cop, you can't just choose to have dark skin or not. You can choose to be a cop, but you can't really choose your sexual orientation.
I agree that the law should be applied equally, but as we've seen with so many recent cases... it isn't.
I hope this one in the OP goes to SCOTUS, and this "say mean things to a badge, get an extra charge" law goes to the same place slavery laws did.
2016/09/08 22:17:56
Subject: Re:Blue Lives Matter Law Used for First Time
One problem is that "hate" is a very subjective term. It varies so much in usage that it's pretty much useless to apply on a societal scale. The word has become highly partisan as well. No such thing should be inscribed into law, regardless of any issues elsewhere.
Indeed the safest road to Hell is the gradual one—the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts. - C.S. Lewis
2016/09/09 00:05:21
Subject: Blue Lives Matter Law Used for First Time
djones520 wrote: I've been very outspoken against these laws. Their bs. Just like any hate crime law.
There should be no protected classes. The law is applied equally to every citizen. Or it should be at least.
IMO, there is a clear need for having protected classes in many cases even today.... Being a cop is not one of them.
You can choose to be a cop, you can't just choose to have dark skin or not. You can choose to be a cop, but you can't really choose your sexual orientation.
I agree that the law should be applied equally, but as we've seen with so many recent cases... it isn't.
I hope this one in the OP goes to SCOTUS, and this "say mean things to a badge, get an extra charge" law goes to the same place slavery laws did.
Well choosing if your gay is up for debate one I dont care about mind you.
So you cant say well you need to have laws to protect people I THINK should be protected. Everyone gets same rights or no one gets any rights. saying we all want to be treated the same I just want more advantages is a way to start hate.
I need to go to work every day.
Millions of people on welfare depend on me.
2016/09/09 00:06:56
Subject: Blue Lives Matter Law Used for First Time
djones520 wrote: I've been very outspoken against these laws. Their bs. Just like any hate crime law.
There should be no protected classes. The law is applied equally to every citizen. Or it should be at least.
IMO, there is a clear need for having protected classes in many cases even today.... Being a cop is not one of them.
You can choose to be a cop, you can't just choose to have dark skin or not. You can choose to be a cop, but you can't really choose your sexual orientation.
I agree that the law should be applied equally, but as we've seen with so many recent cases... it isn't.
I hope this one in the OP goes to SCOTUS, and this "say mean things to a badge, get an extra charge" law goes to the same place slavery laws did.
Well choosing if your gay is up for debate one I dont care about mind you.
So you cant say well you need to have laws to protect people I THINK should be protected. Everyone gets same rights or no one gets any rights. saying we all want to be treated the same I just want more advantages is a way to start hate.
Choosing to be gay is as much up for debate as the Earth being flat. (You don't, and it isn't regardless of what some people claim).
I'm generally in favor of specific protections for needed groups. However, just mouthing off doesn't qualify. Just shows you are an idiot. You have to do a crime to hurt a protected class simply because they are that type of person.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/09 00:09:23
2016/09/09 00:10:36
Subject: Blue Lives Matter Law Used for First Time
skyth wrote: I don't believe that the definition of 'hate crime' is subjective in the laws.
Any act against another race, religion, sex, sexual preference, higth, weight and income can be considered a hate crime.
All they need to do is prove at some point you pointed out that person made a comment that was not pleasant vs that person.
I.E. I got into the fight with that fat guy. Boom hate crime because he was fat or bald or.... what ever. Hate crimes are becoming total bs
I need to go to work every day.
Millions of people on welfare depend on me.
2016/09/09 00:19:25
Subject: Blue Lives Matter Law Used for First Time
WrentheFaceless wrote: How law is applied selectively already destroys that, hate crimes for their part are an attempt to balance the scales that are already unbalanced.
Equality under the law hasnt quite been achieved yet by any society.
That's not what US hate crime legislation does and it's not why US hate crime legislation exists.
The Civil Rights Act of 1968 enacted 18 U.S.C. § 245(b)(2), which permits federal prosecution of anyone who "willingly injures, intimidates or interferes with another person, or attempts to do so, by force because of the other person's race, color, religion or national origin" [1] because of the victim's attempt to engage in one of six types of federally protected activities, such as attending school, patronizing a public place/facility, applying for employment, acting as a juror in a state court or voting.
That's the first hate crime legislation we passed and what it does is criminalize behavior that wasn't specifically criminalizes prior to the legislation being enacted. Prior to the civil rights act it was lawful for states to uphold segregation so barring a nonwhite person from being in the same public school, public place or serving on the same jury as white people was legal. After the civil rights act was passed we needed "hate crime" legislation to criminalize racial discrimination that was previously lawful. That isn't balancing unequal legal protection because prior to the legislation passing the laws didn't exist to be enforced.
In 1994 and 2009 we passed additional federal hate crime legislation that added federal laws on top of pre existing state hate crime laws. We added this additional federal layer with absolutely no credible or conclusive evidence that states were failing to enforce existing laws, hate crime laws and otherwise. This was established by Eric Holders own testimony before the senate regarding the new federal hate crime laws. There's no support for the supposition that hate crime legislation balances the scales when there is no evidence that hate crimes aren't already being prosecuted by local and state govt prosecutors.
The federal hate crime laws we passed in 1994 and 2009 was done just to pander to specific constituencies and posture about being tough on crime. Making actions that were already illegal and already being duly prosecuted extra illegal is a waste of time that plays on people's emotions while insulting the intelligence of the electorate.
Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
2016/09/09 00:36:12
Subject: Blue Lives Matter Law Used for First Time
So you cant say well you need to have laws to protect people I THINK should be protected. Everyone gets same rights or no one gets any rights. saying we all want to be treated the same I just want more advantages is a way to start hate.
I should elaborate a bit... I think that we continue to need "protected classes" of people in certain areas of law: business, housing, employment and the like.
I am not really one for having extra laws because the perpetrator doesn't like the victim for a particular reason, or used particularly mean language. As such, I agree that this Blue lives hate crime, or tacking "hate crime" onto something else that is already a crime (such as assault and battery, or strong armed robbery)
2016/09/09 05:50:18
Subject: Re:Blue Lives Matter Law Used for First Time
I find these threads so frustrating, because I don't like existing hate crime laws and find their use extremely problematic, but the arguments that come up in these threads are just so terrible...
To put it simply, it is a nonsense to argue for equal protection under equal laws when people are not equally vulnerable. Some sections of society have fears and insecurities that others lack. Consider how very different the effect would be from spray painting 'football sucks' on the local sports stadium, compared to spray painting a swastika on the local synagogue. The latter is much more likely to cause fear, because Jewish people have a lot more reason to be fearful of targeted attacks than local football fans.
Now, I agree that the current form of hate crimes are terrible, they focus too much on the status of the victim, and not the intent of the attacker. Most of the time they're used to 'bump up' minor offences to serious fed crimes, mostly to force an early plea on the minor stuff. This is not how justice is supposed to work.
But that doesn't mean we solve anything by going back to the crude 'equal laws' thing. It means we need better laws, and better conversations about the acute vulnerabilities that some in our society suffer, and how we might best protect them.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2016/09/09 09:13:56
Subject: Re:Blue Lives Matter Law Used for First Time
One other point in favor of hate crime laws is that crimes targeting someone because of race/religion/etc are more likely to escalate into additional crimes. Killing someone while saying "all {group}s must die" is a lot more likely to inspire someone else to kill or otherwise harm other members of that group than, say, shooting someone over a dispute about a drug deal. So society has an incentive to come down extra hard on that kind of stuff, hopefully drawing a line saying "this is not ok" before it spreads into horrible things. And in that context a hate crimes law protecting cops makes some degree of sense. It might not stop the next mass murderer (since they're already going to get life in prison at minimum) but I don't think we want to see "national 'beat up a cop' day" become a thing.
The problem is that in this case it seems to be nothing more than a drunk saying stupid stuff in the process of being arrested. There doesn't seem to be any intent to go out and target cops (or anyone else), and the only threat is that someone might have their feelings hurt. It's simply absurd to be talking about years in prison for something like that.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2016/09/09 15:06:49
Subject: Re:Blue Lives Matter Law Used for First Time
Just because someone says an insult out of anger towards someone, doesnt auto = they hate. It might mean they do, but it could also mean that they lost control of themselves and choose what they thought was the most hurt full insult they could think of. If there is a crime for disturbing the peace ir whatever, but dont go the extra step if piling on a hate crime charge.
That is why hate crime legislation in regards to speech is tantamount to a "thought crime".
It needs to be rethought.
GG
2016/09/09 16:11:02
Subject: Blue Lives Matter Law Used for First Time
Even if one believes that "hate crime" laws have a purpose, Police, as armed agents of the state, have absolutely no business being a protected class under such laws, and their inclusion as such is corrupt preferential protectionism, nothing less.
That such a felony charge could be applied to hear of the moment outbursts during an arrest, particularly of what appeared to be (unless I missed something) a misdemeanor offense, is both absurd and rampantly vulnerable to egregious abuse.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
2016/09/09 17:06:09
Subject: Re:Blue Lives Matter Law Used for First Time
generalgrog wrote: That is why hate crime legislation in regards to speech is tantamount to a "thought crime".
It needs to be rethought.
The 'thought crime' argument is terrible, to be frank. It is a basic function of the to assess not just what you did, but also what you were thinking and what you intended. The differentiation between manslaughter and murder relies entirely on intent, for instance. They're all 'thought crimes' if you want to get dramatic about it.
And with hate crime you don't even need that much of a measure of the operation of the mind. You can, for instance, use a reasonable person test to measure the impact on the community. The victim is a white man with 'all white men must die' carved on forehead... in very small letters I guess. Would a reasonable person expect that such an act created a level of fear in the white community in excess of simply the brutality of the murder? If yes, then you add hate crime laws on top. If no then just the murder charge.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
2016/09/09 17:49:53
Subject: Re:Blue Lives Matter Law Used for First Time
generalgrog wrote: That is why hate crime legislation in regards to speech is tantamount to a "thought crime".
It needs to be rethought.
The 'thought crime' argument is terrible, to be frank. It is a basic function of the to assess not just what you did, but also what you were thinking and what you intended. The differentiation between manslaughter and murder relies entirely on intent, for instance. They're all 'thought crimes' if you want to get dramatic about it.
And with hate crime you don't even need that much of a measure of the operation of the mind. You can, for instance, use a reasonable person test to measure the impact on the community. The victim is a white man with 'all white men must die' carved on forehead... in very small letters I guess. Would a reasonable person expect that such an act created a level of fear in the white community in excess of simply the brutality of the murder? If yes, then you add hate crime laws on top. If no then just the murder charge.
I disagree. There is a clear difference between intention to contrast manslaughter from murder and the law punishing individuals for any ideological backings they held which may or may not have been a part of why they did their crime.
In the example you provided with a perpetrator carving "all white men must die" in a head of a white victim, the perpetrator should be judged purely by the actions they took, such as murder and mutilation of corpse, not their ideology. Their ideology is not, nor should not be illegal. It's horrid yes from our perspective, but freedom of speech and thought is the foundation of all freedom. Otherwise a society starts to become Orwellian.
In terms of fear some act may cause in a community, I find that utterly irrelevant and the law should not be based on emotion from any community. A community can fear as much as they can, be it a justified fear or not. It does not however justify legal punishments on others. Such reasoning can lead to infringements of freedom of speech, conscience and thought, as a community could easily find "person x's" speech to create fear in them and therefore subject to hate laws.
Indeed the safest road to Hell is the gradual one—the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts. - C.S. Lewis
2016/09/09 18:48:25
Subject: Blue Lives Matter Law Used for First Time
skyth wrote: Simply putting fear into someone doesn't constitute a hate crime. What a hate crime charge does is make another crime more severe.
It's the difference between killing someone and making an example of someone by killing them to make others fall in line.
The only way you could argue a certain criminal was influenced by a hateful ideological factor, such a racism, is by looking at what the perpetrator believed through his forms of speech and who he is associated with. The speech is protected and unless he is associated with a threat to the state, such as a terrorist cell, he is certainly legal to be associated with said group.
But again, the reasoning of adding charges because it promotes fear can easily lead to future laws against people who "spread fear" through non-violent means.
It is legal to be "hateful", especially considering what is hate and hateful is incredibly subjective and arguable.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/09 19:07:56
Indeed the safest road to Hell is the gradual one—the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts. - C.S. Lewis
2016/09/09 19:07:09
Subject: Re:Blue Lives Matter Law Used for First Time
generalgrog wrote: That is why hate crime legislation in regards to speech is tantamount to a "thought crime".
It needs to be rethought.
The 'thought crime' argument is terrible, to be frank. It is a basic function of the to assess not just what you did, but also what you were thinking and what you intended. The differentiation between manslaughter and murder relies entirely on intent, for instance. They're all 'thought crimes' if you want to get dramatic about it.
And with hate crime you don't even need that much of a measure of the operation of the mind. You can, for instance, use a reasonable person test to measure the impact on the community. The victim is a white man with 'all white men must die' carved on forehead... in very small letters I guess. Would a reasonable person expect that such an act created a level of fear in the white community in excess of simply the brutality of the murder? If yes, then you add hate crime laws on top. If no then just the murder charge.
There's no point to adding hate crime laws on top of that scenario at all. Person murders another person. The state should charge the murderer with murder, prosecute the murderer and hopefully get a conviction and appropriate sentence. Creating additional federal laws beyond the existing state laws to single out some specific types of murder as being extra special bad is a divisive waste of time. The sentence for a murderer should be justifiably severe because of the fact that a murder was committed whether it was a "hate crime" or not. What purpose does the distinction and greater sentence serve? If the supposition is that hate murders are worse for society than regular murders then that's the same as saying regular murders are of lesser concern to society than hate murders which is a terrible message to send. Murder, assault, etc. violent crimes are bad, they are treated seriously by law enforcement and prosecuted aggressively, we don't need pandering politically motivated hate crime window dressing added on just for the sake of politicians being able to proclaim to the electorate that they're "doing something."
Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
2016/09/09 19:15:43
Subject: Blue Lives Matter Law Used for First Time
skyth wrote: Simply putting fear into someone doesn't constitute a hate crime. What a hate crime charge does is make another crime more severe.
It's the difference between killing someone and making an example of someone by killing them to make others fall in line.
The only way you could argue a certain criminal was influenced by a hateful ideological factor, such a racism, is by looking at what the perpetrator believed through his forms of speech and who he is associated with. The speech is protected and unless he is associated with a threat to the state, such as a terrorist cell, he is certainly legal to be associated with said group.
But again, the reasoning of adding charges because it promotes fear can easily lead to future laws against people who "spread fear" through non-violent means.
It is legal to be "hateful", especially considering what is hate and hateful is incredibly subjective and arguable.
And here we have the slippery slope fallacy in action. Hate crimes are pretty much specifically tied to crimes that damage people or property. Saying that someone might introduce laws that do not do that is really meaningless.
2016/09/09 19:37:27
Subject: Blue Lives Matter Law Used for First Time
skyth wrote: Simply putting fear into someone doesn't constitute a hate crime. What a hate crime charge does is make another crime more severe.
It's the difference between killing someone and making an example of someone by killing them to make others fall in line.
The only way you could argue a certain criminal was influenced by a hateful ideological factor, such a racism, is by looking at what the perpetrator believed through his forms of speech and who he is associated with. The speech is protected and unless he is associated with a threat to the state, such as a terrorist cell, he is certainly legal to be associated with said group.
But again, the reasoning of adding charges because it promotes fear can easily lead to future laws against people who "spread fear" through non-violent means.
It is legal to be "hateful", especially considering what is hate and hateful is incredibly subjective and arguable.
And here we have the slippery slope fallacy in action. Hate crimes are pretty much specifically tied to crimes that damage people or property. Saying that someone might introduce laws that do not do that is really meaningless.
It would only be a fallacy if I claimed such laws would occur, not could occur. There is a difference.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/09 19:41:45
Indeed the safest road to Hell is the gradual one—the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts. - C.S. Lewis
2016/09/09 19:53:39
Subject: Blue Lives Matter Law Used for First Time
Maybe I didn't understand, maybe I read too quickly but: how is this bad to arrest people giving a policeman the finger / insulting them ?
I think it is ok to arrest people attacking the Police, even if just verbally.
What did I miss ?
Polonius wrote: What's the practical difference between "hate crime" laws and laws against terrorism?
Don't both basically punish already illegal acts on a larger scale, based in large part on the motive?
There are some terrorism laws that criminalize specific actions that weren't previously criminalized whereas almost all hate crime laws just add "hate" onto existing actions that were already illegal as a pretext for harsher sentences for crimes committed against specific groups of people. I agree with you regarding the fact that the majority of terrorism laws cover criminal acts that were already illegal and just add "terror" onto them to allow the federal government to supersede state and local jurisdictions and to impose harsher sentences on people.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
godardc wrote: Maybe I didn't understand, maybe I read too quickly but: how is this bad to arrest people giving a policeman the finger / insulting them ?
I think it is ok to arrest people attacking the Police, even if just verbally.
What did I miss ?
The 1st amendment to the US constitution.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/09 20:10:51
Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
2016/09/09 20:25:55
Subject: Blue Lives Matter Law Used for First Time
godardc wrote: Maybe I didn't understand, maybe I read too quickly but: how is this bad to arrest people giving a policeman the finger / insulting them ?
I think it is ok to arrest people attacking the Police, even if just verbally.
What did I miss ?
The fact that being a is not illegal.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prestor Jon wrote: There's no point to adding hate crime laws on top of that scenario at all. Person murders another person. The state should charge the murderer with murder, prosecute the murderer and hopefully get a conviction and appropriate sentence. Creating additional federal laws beyond the existing state laws to single out some specific types of murder as being extra special bad is a divisive waste of time. The sentence for a murderer should be justifiably severe because of the fact that a murder was committed whether it was a "hate crime" or not. What purpose does the distinction and greater sentence serve? If the supposition is that hate murders are worse for society than regular murders then that's the same as saying regular murders are of lesser concern to society than hate murders which is a terrible message to send. Murder, assault, etc. violent crimes are bad, they are treated seriously by law enforcement and prosecuted aggressively, we don't need pandering politically motivated hate crime window dressing added on just for the sake of politicians being able to proclaim to the electorate that they're "doing something."
This argument seems to be based on the assumption that the sentence for "normal" murder is already the maximum possible and adding extra years of prison time is one of those "OVER 9000 YEARS IN JAIL" things where it's just a bigger number. There are plenty of crimes where the sentence is not already the maximum possible and the extra punishment is meaningful.
And no, saying "normal murders aren't as bad as hate murders" is not a problem. Consider an alternative comparison: whether or not the sentence is the same I think most people would agree that being shot in the head and killed instantly is much less horrible than being tortured to death over days of suffering. And recognizing this fact does not in any way mean saying that being murdered by a shot to the head is no big deal and society shouldn't really care about it. We are perfectly capable of saying that the relatively painless murder is very bad, and the torture murder is worse. Same thing with hate crime laws. Acknowledging the extra evil of hate crimes does not mean excusing the evils of any other crimes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
PrayingSeraph wrote: In the example you provided with a perpetrator carving "all white men must die" in a head of a white victim, the perpetrator should be judged purely by the actions they took, such as murder and mutilation of corpse, not their ideology. Their ideology is not, nor should not be illegal. It's horrid yes from our perspective, but freedom of speech and thought is the foundation of all freedom. Otherwise a society starts to become Orwellian.
Inciting violence is not mere speech, and it is not Orwellian to punish people who do it. "White men are evil" is an ideology that must be protected, and saying it is (and should be) protected speech. "Kill this white man" is not.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/09/09 20:35:07
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2016/09/09 20:42:19
Subject: Blue Lives Matter Law Used for First Time
Prestor Jon wrote: There's no point to adding hate crime laws on top of that scenario at all. Person murders another person. The state should charge the murderer with murder, prosecute the murderer and hopefully get a conviction and appropriate sentence. Creating additional federal laws beyond the existing state laws to single out some specific types of murder as being extra special bad is a divisive waste of time. The sentence for a murderer should be justifiably severe because of the fact that a murder was committed whether it was a "hate crime" or not. What purpose does the distinction and greater sentence serve? If the supposition is that hate murders are worse for society than regular murders then that's the same as saying regular murders are of lesser concern to society than hate murders which is a terrible message to send. Murder, assault, etc. violent crimes are bad, they are treated seriously by law enforcement and prosecuted aggressively, we don't need pandering politically motivated hate crime window dressing added on just for the sake of politicians being able to proclaim to the electorate that they're "doing something."
This argument seems to be based on the assumption that the sentence for "normal" murder is already the maximum possible and adding extra years of prison time is one of those "OVER 9000 YEARS IN JAIL" things where it's just a bigger number. There are plenty of crimes where the sentence is not already the maximum possible and the extra punishment is meaningful.
And no, saying "normal murders aren't as bad as hate murders" is not a problem. Consider an alternative comparison: whether or not the sentence is the same I think most people would agree that being shot in the head and killed instantly is much less horrible than being tortured to death over days of suffering. And recognizing this fact does not in any way mean saying that being murdered by a shot to the head is no big deal and society shouldn't really care about it. We are perfectly capable of saying that the relatively painless murder is very bad, and the torture murder is worse. Same thing with hate crime laws. Acknowledging the extra evil of hate crimes does not mean excusing the evils of any other crimes.
I would consider a problem for everyone concerned with the concept of equal protection under the law. If a person commits murder that act by itself regardless of motivation or methodology is already damaging enough to society to justify harsh punishment so we don't need to create false distinctions just for the sake of doing so. The govt has no business determining that the murder of one person is more egregious than the murder of a different person when society and the law values both people equally. Whether you are shot in the head or gruesomely tortured to death makes no difference to the fact that society cannot tolerate your murderer to remain a member of society and that your murderer needs to be forcibly kept away from society in order to prevent more victims from being murdered.
3000
4000 
saying stupid stuff in the process of being arrested. There doesn't seem to be any intent to go out and target cops (or anyone else), and the only threat is that someone might have their feelings hurt. It's simply absurd to be talking about years in prison for something like that.
