Iowa man who sets LGBTQ flag on fire gets over 15 years in prison

[dixon01767]

:
Do you genuinely not understand how these laws work, or do you deliberately not want to understand?

I know. Somebody assaults a homosexual while hurling a derogatory insult like faggot, and you have a hate crime. Million women get assaulted while hurling a derogatory term like bitch, **** or whore and its a regular assault. Purposely unequal protection of the law.

 

[Visbek]

That comment was to point out that all crime is crime and that all crime is hate crime and that all hate crime is crime...

Your spluttering equivocations are not helping you here. You explicitly said "all crimes are hate crimes," and it is not wrong for me to assume you actually meant what you wrote.

And again, your amended claim does not work. You didn't even bother to address the argument.

It is the same argument that I have always made. Read the thread.

All I see is you saying "hate crimes are BS" and "hate crimes demean other crimes." The former is not an argument; I see no indication that you successfully defended the latter. You didn't even try.

 

[Visbek]

I know. Somebody assaults a homosexual while hurling a derogatory insult like faggot, and you have a hate crime. Million women get assaulted while hurling a derogatory term like bitch, **** or whore and its a regular assault. Purposely unequal protection of the law.

sigh

In approximately half of all US states, gender is often a protected class for bias crimes. Thus, if the prosecutor believes that the attack was actually motivated by bias -- including the use of gender-specific insults -- then the accused may wind up facing bias crime charges. If bias attacks on women are overlooked by police or prosecutors, that is not a fault in the law, but in how the law is applied by those authorities.

In the other half, the problem is not the concept of a bias crime law, but the lack of protecting gender in those bias crime laws.

In either event, if there is "unequal protection of the law," the solution is not to throw out bias crime laws, but to adjust the laws, and train police and prosecutors about the situations where those types of charges can be appropriate.

And of course, bias crime laws are not written to privilege certain groups, as that would not be constitutionally sound. Thus, the laws do not protect "LGBT individuals," rather they protect "sexual orientation." Thus, if a straight man was assaulted specifically for is sexual orientation, that can be charged as a bias crime.

 

[Bodi]

Your spluttering equivocations are not helping you here. You explicitly said "all crimes are hate crimes," and it is not wrong for me to assume you actually meant what you wrote.

And again, your amended claim does not work. You didn't even bother to address the argument.



All I see is you saying "hate crimes are BS" and "hate crimes demean other crimes." The former is not an argument; I see no indication that you successfully defended the latter. You didn't even try.

You can not prove that all crimes are not hate crimes...

 

[code1211]

Satire IS, indeed, a form of humour.

Unfortunately, it is a fact that the actual, currently operative, definition of "different" as it is used in today's political discussions and the operating definition in US politics today IS

DIFFERENT - "Something that is absolutely identical to something that 'THEIR SIDE' does and which I condemn but which is done by 'MY SIDE'."
​

and it is also a fact that a goodly percentage of the American people actually believe that

But, but - but ... That's DIFFERENT!!!
​

and

"Is too."

"Is TOO."

"IS TOO."

"IS TOO."

"IS TOO!"

"IS TOO!!!"

"IIIISSSSSS TTTTOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!"
​

actually constitute "logical" arguments (at least when "THEIR Guys" use them) and that is not in the least bit humourous.

You seem perfectly happy to be alone with your thoughts.

I'll try not to interfere.

 

[code1211]

I have no idea and neither do you.

Then the conversation has ended.

 

[dixon01767]

sigh

In approximately half of all US states, gender is often a protected class for bias crimes. Thus, if the prosecutor believes that the attack was actually motivated by bias -- including the use of gender-specific insults -- then the accused may wind up facing bias crime charges. If bias attacks on women are overlooked by police or prosecutors, that is not a fault in the law, but in how the law is applied by those authorities.

Im fully aware that on their face the statutes applies equally to all and it is instead in their application that produces the inequality. The hate is presumed in the case of the homosexual and equally presumed absent in the case of the woman. When in reality the situations are the same. If I want a derogatory name to hurl at an obvious homosexual Id probably go with faggot or something similar. If I want a derogatory name to hurl at a black man I might go with ni$#er. If I want a derogatory name to hurl at a woman I might go with bitch. And none of the 3 situations involve any hate but it will be presumed in the case of faggot or ni##er used in the commission of an assault and presumed absent in the case of bitch.
Just as it would be presumed absent if a homosexual assaulted someone calling him a breeder. Assumed absent if a black man assaulted a white man calling him a cracker.

 

[Visbek]

You can not prove that all crimes are not hate crimes...

You really need to get your story straight.

 

[Visbek]

....none of the 3 situations involve any hate but it will be presumed.... absent in the case of bitch.

• It can take more than the use of a single epithet for a crime to be classified as a "bias crime."

• In jurisdictions where gender is protected, if there is evidence that it's a hate crime and it is not prosecuted as such, and there are no relevant mitigating circumstances (e.g. plea deal), then that is a flaw in the application rather than the law.

• In jurisdictions where gender is not protected, the solution is to add those protections.

Just as it would be presumed absent if a homosexual assaulted someone calling him a breeder. Assumed absent if a black man assaulted a white man calling him a cracker.

So your complaint is what, exactly? That "bitch" is not as bad of an epithet as some other words? THAT is your complaint?!? Please.

 

[dixon01767]

• It can take more than the use of a single epithet for a crime to be classified as a "bias crime.".

Of course it "can". But frequently a single epithet is all that is needed IF its directed towards specific classifications of people.

 

[Visbek]

Of course it "can". But frequently a single epithet is all that is needed IF its directed towards specific classifications of people.

I know of no evidence to support your claim.

 

[dixon01767]

So your complaint is what, exactly? That "bitch" is not as bad of an epithet as some other words? THAT is your complaint?!? Please.

Nope, my complaint is that its Unequal treatment under the law, depending upon which classification of people you are dealing with. "Polar Bear hunting" is a good example. The black kids call it that because they are looking for white victims. The only time Ive heard of it being labeled a hate crime is when Jewish were the victims and they classify it as antisemitism. Otherwise they are jus assaults.

 

[Visbek]

Nope, my complaint is that its Unequal treatment under the law, depending upon which classification of people you are dealing with.

Then your complaint is wrong.

Here is Iowa's law:

729A.2 Violation of individual rights — hate crime.
“Hate crime” means one of the following public offenses when committed against a person
or a person’s property because of the person’s race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin,
political affiliation, sex, sexual orientation, age, or disability, or the person’s association with
a person of a certain race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, political affiliation, sex,
sexual orientation, age, or disability.

Note how it does not specify "blacks" or "minorities;" the law says "race." Thus, if a white man was specifically targeted because he was a white man, that can be classified as a hate crime.

"Polar Bear hunting" is a good example. The black kids call it that because they are looking for white victims. The only time Ive heard of it being labeled a hate crime is when Jewish were the victims and they classify it as antisemitism. Otherwise they are jus assaults.

sigh

There are cases where minorities face hate crime charges when attacking whites, e.g. Kori Ali Muhammad; and Brittany Covington, Tesfaye Cooper and Jordan Hill, and Tanishia Covington. You don't hear about hate crime charges against minorities because those types of attacks are rare:

The 2015 FBI data showed that of the 734 total reported offenses committed against whites — a single incident could have multiple offenses like assault or theft — 46 percent of those were committed by blacks.

In contrast, of the 2,125 reported offenses committed against blacks, 58% of those who committed by whites. (Hate crimes against whites remain rare, despite shocking Facebook torture video - New York Daily News)
For the record, that's 337 instances of black-on-white crime, and 1240 instances of white-on-black crime, in 2015. Only a small number of either of those are hate crimes.

As to "Polar Bear Hunting," that's just another fake tired ol' trope by Whites Who Wanna Be Victims and Justify Being Afraid of Blacks. One year it's called "wilding," the next "the Knockout Game," and so on. It's basically just random street attacks -- which are often perpetrated as often by whites as by blacks -- used to create a periodic moral panic, so the police can keep targeting groups of black kids with impunity.

 

[Bodi]

You really need to get your story straight.

Uh-huh... I explained it in a simple and concise manner.

 

[dixon01767]

Then your complaint is wrong.

Here is Iowa's law:

729A.2 Violation of individual rights — hate crime.
“Hate crime” means one of the following public offenses when committed against a person
or a person’s property because of the person’s race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin,
political affiliation, sex, sexual orientation, age, or disability, or the person’s association with
a person of a certain race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, political affiliation, sex,
sexual orientation, age, or disability.

Note how it does not specify "blacks" or "minorities;" the law says "race." Thus, if a white man was specifically targeted because he was a white man, that can be classified as a hate crime.

"Can" and should be, but is not.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

sigh

In approximately half of all US states, gender is often a protected class for bias crimes.

And yet there are some states which are going to court to prevent the ERA

"ARTICLE —

"Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

"Sec. 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

"Sec. 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification."
​

from actually becoming law.

Thus, if the prosecutor believes that the attack was actually motivated by bias -- including the use of gender-specific insults -- then the accused may wind up facing bias crime charges. If bias attacks on women are overlooked by police or prosecutors, that is not a fault in the law, but in how the law is applied by those authorities.

Quite right.

In the other half, the problem is not the concept of a bias crime law, but the lack of protecting gender in those bias crime laws.

As is currently allowed by the constitution of the United States of America which gives the several states complete jurisdiction to pass (or not pass) any laws which do not conflict with the constitution of the United States of America. This is a matter of "States' Rights" which the opposing states, and the Federal Department of Justice

But a 38-page opinion issued by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel on Jan. 6 said the Supreme Court has upheld the authority of Congress to impose a ratification deadline. The opinion said it makes no difference that the deadline was in the resolution's proposing clause.
[SOURCE]
​

are strongly defending.

In either event, if there is "unequal protection of the law," the solution is not to throw out bias crime laws, but to adjust the laws, and train police and prosecutors about the situations where those types of charges can be appropriate.

What you are suggesting is a totally unjust infringement on the "States' Right" to determine how long it takes to fully train a police officer of lawyer. If a state determines that all a police officer requires is nine weeks of training in order to become a fully trained police officer, then imposing additional training requirements means either that the federal government is unjustly imposing a burden on the states or that some of the essential training that police officers currently receive will have to be eliminated and that means that the states will be forced to allow people who are less than fully trained to become police officers.

[The above legal opinion, has been provided by the law firm of Wieselwort, du Plicité, Poco-Escrupuloso, Flerd, and Corrotto LLP, was paid for and has been officially approved and endorsed by "Devoted Online Lovers of Trump" Inc. (a non-partisan, independent, research and analysis organization exempt from federal taxation that is dedicated to bringing you the true truth and not the false truth that anyone who doesn't believe 100% of what Donald Trump says tries to tell you the so-called "facts" are), "Pro-Life United Gun Enthusiasts and Manufacturers for Jesus", and “"The ‘First Amendment Rights Trust’ Foundation”.]
​

And of course, bias crime laws are not written to privilege certain groups, as that would not be constitutionally sound. Thus, the laws do not protect "LGBT individuals," rather they protect "sexual orientation." Thus, if a straight man was assaulted specifically for is sexual orientation, that can be charged as a bias crime.

Picky, picky, picky.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

You can not prove that all crimes are not hate crimes...

Of course not, it is impossible to prove a negative.

I mean, everyone knows that drug dealers, drunk drivers, and shoplifters are motivated SOLELY by "hate" - right?

 

[Bodi]

Of course not, it is impossible to prove a negative.

I mean, everyone knows that drug dealers, drunk drivers, and shoplifters are motivated SOLELY by "hate" - right?

I win...

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I win...

Good for you.

​