Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 51

Thread: An example of why I dislike "hate crime" laws

  1. #1
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795

    An example of why I dislike "hate crime" laws

    Ok, so other than discussing the risks of confronting more than a half dozen men over mere property, this thread is almost entirely off topic (hence being here rather than in the Utah section). Let me say right up front, that I don't think being pro-RKBA imposes any requirement one way or the other regarding "hate" or "bias" crime enhancement laws.

    But for me, this story, as reported on KSL yesterday afternoon highlights why I personally dislike so-called "hate crime" laws. Even when such laws are written in a very content or position neutral position, their application is, all too often, very one sided.

    Utah's "hate crime" law is contained at URS 76-3-203.3 and URS 76-3-203.4. It does not list protected categories, but rather defines a hate crime as a crime which in addition the crime itself, also "causes the person to fear for his physical safety or damages the property of that person or another. The act must be accompanied with the intent to cause or has the effect of causing a person to reasonably fear to freely exercise or enjoy any right secured by the Constitution or laws of the state or by the Constitution or laws of the United States."

    Freedom of speech/expression (such as having a symbol on your truck to which someone chooses to take offense) strikes me as a right secured by the Constitution.

    Anyway, long story short, a couple of friends come down to SLC from Wyoming for the Garth Brooks concert. While at the hotel they notice several men checking out their truck in the hotel parking lot. When the truck owner goes out to see what is wrong, the 6 or 7 men (who happen to be black) express offense that he has a magnet on his truck portraying the Confederate Battle Standard and toss out anti-homosexual slurs (no indication of whether the truck owner is actually homosexual). When he asks the men to move away from his truck he is assaulted.

    From the article:

    Quote Originally Posted by KSL article
    But whether the assault rises to the level of being a hate crime is something police are still investigating. As of Wednesday, Salt Lake Police Sgt. Robin Heiden said the incident did not.

    "After speaking with some of the witnesses, we are leaning toward more of a simple assault than a hate crime. But that could always change as we move forward with the investigation," she said.

    ...

    [The Victim] believes that once [the assailants] are caught, they should be charged with a hate crime.

    "If the situation was reversed, and if there was a large group of white males who confronted two black gentlemen who, hypothetically, had a sticker on their vehicle that said, 'Black lives matter,' it would be dubbed a hate crime in a heartbeat. So where's the double standard there?" he asked.
    I think the victim's observation and question above about sums it up.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  2. #2
    Regular Member DeSchaine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Kalamazoo, MI
    Posts
    604
    +100%

    The hate crime statutes are VERY rarely (if ever) used in a crime where a person of color has attacked a white person. As far as I can see, hate crime statutes themselves are racist and should be eliminated. Either that or apply them evenly. Here's another example, with very clear evidence on the video.

    Downtown assault victim wants ‘hate crime’ charges
    Guard with jealous attention the public liberty.
    Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel.
    Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force.
    Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.
    -Patrick Henry, Virginia Ratification Convention, June 5, 1788

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Should be a law for those that hate America? Just for a while ... to lock up all those antis.

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper View Post
    SNIP Freedom of speech/expression (such as having a symbol on your truck to which someone chooses to take offense) strikes me as a right secured by the Constitution.
    Readers, don't fall for it.

    The problem with hate crimes is not speech or press.

    The problem with hate crimes is that they criminalize thought. Murder is murder. But, if a person has a "bad" thought--for example kills a minority because he hates those in that minority--then the an additional or worse crime is committed. Thought crime, plain and simple.

    Criminalizing "hate" just brings us one slide further down the slippery slope. Criminalize the actions, not the thought. When you open the thought-crime door, you open the door to government criminalizing other thoughts. As I understand it, it is now illegal to sell an old 3.2 gallon/flush toilet. Even at a yard sale. How much longer until selling a toilet, or pulling off a mattress tag, and during the transaction saying "I don't care what the government thinks" earns you an extra two years in jail or an extra $5K fine. If you can criminalize any thought, you can criminalize all thought that does not meet government's standard. Winston Smith understood this (George Orwell's 1984).

    --Mod deleted sniping, personal attack--
    Last edited by Grapeshot; 11-18-2015 at 08:51 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  5. #5
    Regular Member J_dazzle23's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    675
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    --Mod deleted sniping, personal attack--
    You made a thoughtful, accurate, and insightful point. Why finish it off with an unneeded snipe? Can't y'all just keep your beef to a select thread? Lol.

    On topic- "hate" crime is just a bandwagon legal assignment that absurd "social" movements have claimed as a way to sell their plight to the liberal media. IMO.

    If I have the thought but don't have the action am I still guilty? Only time will tell...


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Last edited by Grapeshot; 11-18-2015 at 08:52 PM.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,153
    Actually this is a fine example of why I dislike scare-quotes and eggcorns.
    Last edited by Nightmare; 11-11-2015 at 07:54 AM.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    Criminal law has always had a political agenda.
    "I'm just a no-account screed-peddler" Dave Workman http://goo.gl/CNf6pB

    "We ought to extend the [1994] assault weapons ban" George W Bush

    "The Bush Administration declared a permanent ban today on almost all foreign-made semiautomatic assault rifles." George Bush Sr, New York Times on July 8, 1989

    "I support the Brady bill and I urge the Congress to enact it without delay." Ronald Regan.

    "Guns are an abomination." Richard Nixon

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave_pro2a View Post
    Criminal law has always had a political agenda.
    I was reading some time back about the jump from private victim to government being the victim. You know--where a crime is an offense against the state, not the individual.

    The source I saw--can't recall now, maybe a documentary online--pointed out that it was Henry II (late 1200s). Wanting to expand his power (political motivation) he sent royal judges on circuit. Prior to this, crimes were tried at the lord's manor about once a month.

    Henry's judges went on circuit with instructions to take jurisdiction. Common law at this time, though, dictated that the accused request his case be transferred to the royal judge. (This is the forerunner of pleading guilty or not guilty. In Henry's time you had to consent--in fact, request--to be tried by the government instead of a trial by ordeal or battle at the manor level. As late as Tudor England, the government could not try you until you pled guilty or not guilty. This is why people were pressed, sometimes to death, under Elizabeth I. The government wasn't pressing people as torture; they were pressing people to force them to plead to the charges--the government could not legally try the accused unless he pled.)

    So, to make a long story short, across time, what started as Henry II's move to expand his power, was eventually shifted to a crime being an offense, not against the victim, but against the king's peace--the government itself.

    Just as a side note to add perspective. There was a massive revolt in England in 1381. It is called the Peasant's Revolt. I won't go into the details; you can find an excellent documentary on youtube. One of the influential revolters was a former military man. When the revolt failed, instead of trial by a government judge, he chose trial by battle. Whether he survived or died is almost beside the point; the stunning implication is twofold: 1) trial by battle was still available by law to an accused as late as 1381, and 2) public opinion about the law was such that government--even in the face of being nearly toppled by the revolt*--felt constrained to respect the law and allow the trial by battle.



    *The Peasant's Revolt of 1381 almost toppled the government. Literally. They came within five minutes, a hair's breadth, and a single decision by the king. It was literally that close.

    The revolters had already burned a good bit of the south of England. They had already executed the Archbishop of Canterbury (senior churchman for all of England). The had already executed the king's most senior advisor. They had already stormed the Tower of London and taken it over. Confronted with the revolter's army, young king Richard II (14 yrs old) split the revolters by riding forth and telling the moderates they would be heard and concessions made. The moderates turned to walk home off the battlefield. The hardliners got into a fight (who started it seems a little open to debate), but their numbers were now insufficient to win.

    It really came that close. A bold young king riding forth to face his enemies and make an offer. Exactly the right offer to split the opposition.

    Its a great story. But it also meant hundreds of years more of aristocracy controlling the country, class struggle, grinding poverty, royal wars, etc., etc., etc. Don't forget that part.
    Last edited by Citizen; 11-11-2015 at 08:03 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  9. #9
    Regular Member J_dazzle23's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    675
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    --Mod edited/deleted--
    I can call it like I see it. I've been gone for a few months and this was literally the first post I saw when I logged on.

    I also don't see signature lines on my iPhone app- what I always use- for some reason.

    A few months ago when I was here, I got the impression that bagpiper was quite libertarian in his ideals but does not see anarchy being a long term solution for a few key problems. I can't believe that this debate has dragged on into threads months later, regardless of who is to blame.

    Why not just agree to disagree? I think we are all on the same page(at least mostly) on RKBA, which is why I think we are all here?

    Anyway, I digress. I think "hate crime" is a bunch of bs, and I see it moving towards a "minority report" type of environment if we don't reign it in.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Last edited by Grapeshot; 11-18-2015 at 08:56 PM.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    1,929
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    --Mod edited/deleted--
    My guess would be that JDazzle knows he can expect a higher caliber of decorum from you than he can from others...nevertheless, you raise a good point. If one wants to point out a supposed failing of character, why be stingy?
    Last edited by Grapeshot; 11-18-2015 at 08:57 PM.

  11. #11
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by J_dazzle23 View Post
    SNIP Anyway, I digress. I think "hate crime" is a bunch of bs, and I see it moving towards a "minority report" type of environment if we don't reign it in.
    Funny you mention that. Just today, FourthAmendment.com referenced a story about police using a computer program to predict where crime will be more likely to occur.

    Rather than divert this thread, I'm thinking it deserves its own thread. I'll let you decide.

    http://fourthamendment.com/?p=19525
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  12. #12
    Regular Member J_dazzle23's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    675
    Hahaha. I hope you aren't referring to the state of Utah. Quite a few Ron Paul fans out here


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  13. #13
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by J_dazzle23 View Post
    I got the impression that bagpiper was quite libertarian in his ideals
    You must be referring to this user:

    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/me...660-utbagpiper

    Screen name utbagpiper.

    You abbreviated his name utbagpiper

    I abbreviate his name utbagpiper.

    You emphasize the man who blows pipes.

    I emphasize a man who lives in Utah.

    We're both talking about the same guy.

    A question for you Dazzel, has Bagpiper chastised you for abbreviating his name?
    Last edited by Dave_pro2a; 11-11-2015 at 09:38 PM.
    "I'm just a no-account screed-peddler" Dave Workman http://goo.gl/CNf6pB

    "We ought to extend the [1994] assault weapons ban" George W Bush

    "The Bush Administration declared a permanent ban today on almost all foreign-made semiautomatic assault rifles." George Bush Sr, New York Times on July 8, 1989

    "I support the Brady bill and I urge the Congress to enact it without delay." Ronald Regan.

    "Guns are an abomination." Richard Nixon

  14. #14
    Regular Member J_dazzle23's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    675
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave_pro2a View Post
    You must be referring to this user:

    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/me...660-utbagpiper

    Screen name utbagpiper.

    You abbreviated his name utbagpiper

    I abbreviate his name utbagpiper.

    You emphasize the man who blows pipes.

    I emphasize a man who lives in Utah.

    We're both talking about the same guy.

    A question for you Dazzel, has Bagpiper chastised you for abbreviating his name?
    Please don't refer to me as "Dazzel,"

    My name is J_dazzle23. You can refer to me as that.

    Joking. :P

    But seriously. Who cares if he did or not? Not relevant. The topic of this thread was a good one and had potential.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  15. #15
    Regular Member Dave_pro2a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,227
    Quote Originally Posted by J_dazzle23 View Post
    Please don't refer to me as "Dazzel,"

    My name is J_dazzle23. You can refer to me as that.

    Joking. :P

    But seriously. Who cares if he did or not? Not relevant. The topic of this thread was a good one and had potential.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    You just made your post "666"

    Uh oh ;/
    "I'm just a no-account screed-peddler" Dave Workman http://goo.gl/CNf6pB

    "We ought to extend the [1994] assault weapons ban" George W Bush

    "The Bush Administration declared a permanent ban today on almost all foreign-made semiautomatic assault rifles." George Bush Sr, New York Times on July 8, 1989

    "I support the Brady bill and I urge the Congress to enact it without delay." Ronald Regan.

    "Guns are an abomination." Richard Nixon

  16. #16
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by J_dazzle23 View Post

    A few months ago when I was here, I got the impression that bagpiper was quite libertarian in his ideals but does not see anarchy being a long term solution for a few key problems. I can't believe that this debate has dragged on into threads months later, regardless of who is to blame.




    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    He's not even close to libertarian, you'd be closer.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  17. #17
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,272
    76-3-203.3. Penalty for hate crimes -- Civil rights violation.
    (4) Primary offenses referred to in Subsection (1) are the misdemeanor offenses for:
    (i) any cruelty to animals offense under Section 76-9-301; and
    Interesting, a hate crime could be applied for cruelty to a animal.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  18. #18
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    76-3-203.3. Penalty for hate crimes -- Civil rights violation.
    (4) Primary offenses referred to in Subsection (1) are the misdemeanor offenses for:
    (i) any cruelty to animals offense under Section 76-9-301; and
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Interesting, a hate crime could be applied for cruelty to a animal.
    That was put in there to protect lobbyists and legislators.
    Last edited by Citizen; 11-16-2015 at 11:25 AM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,153
    If civil rights are attached to animals, what about Saracens?
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Big D
    Posts
    1,059
    "You have the right to be eaten. If you waive that right, you will likely be infected by parasites and die a slow, agonizing death. Or killed by a car and turned into sun-dried road jerky. Or live to a ripe old age of 5, whereupon you will perish due to malnutrition because you can no longer compete for food due to age or infirmity" Those kinds of civil rights for animals?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  21. #21
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    If civil rights are attached to animals, what about Saracens?
    Dang it! You, Marshaul, and Solus are the main reason I've just about worn out my dictionary. Hang on a second while I go look that up.


    ETA: OK. Now I get it. Boy, that was sly.
    Last edited by Citizen; 11-16-2015 at 07:44 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  22. #22
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,272
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Dang it! You, Marshaul, and Solus are the main reason I've just about worn out my dictionary. Hang on a second while I go look that up.


    ETA: OK. Now I get it. Boy, that was sly.
    No... the other Saracens, not the London based rugby union team.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Houston TX
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Readers, don't fall for it.

    The problem with hate crimes is not speech or press.

    The problem with hate crimes is that they criminalize thought. Murder is murder. But, if a person has a "bad" thought--for example kills a minority because he hates those in that minority--then the an additional or worse crime is committed. Thought crime, plain and simple.

    Criminalizing "hate" just brings us one slide further down the slippery slope. Criminalize the actions, not the thought. When you open the thought-crime door, you open the door to government criminalizing other thoughts. As I understand it, it is now illegal to sell an old 3.2 gallon/flush toilet. Even at a yard sale. How much longer until selling a toilet, or pulling off a mattress tag, and during the transaction saying "I don't care what the government thinks" earns you an extra two years in jail or an extra $5K fine. If you can criminalize any thought, you can criminalize all thought that does not meet government's standard. Winston Smith understood this (George Orwell's 1984).

    Although, I am not all surprised the that point would be missed by the quoted poster.
    This is so accurate it is frightening. A crime is a crime is a crime -period. If you want to end racism, than stop making a big deal about race when crime is committed. If the law looks at people of color differently, what is to stop the average citizen from doing so.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Big D
    Posts
    1,059
    Motivation for the act has always been an element of the crime for things like murder. Motive is important. Malice is a variable thing. Race- or gender-motivated crime is every bit as malicious as one motivated by hate. And you don't have to have hatred for a race to accept that they are inferior and can be exterminated without further regard, as psychotic as that sounds. Some people actually think that "getting rid" of people different from themselves is a form of self-defense or defense of mankind. This is the best reason for having SOME hate crime designations that really are not about actual hate.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  25. #25
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Why would someone murder someone that they did not hate?



    Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •