• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

An example of why I dislike "hate crime" laws

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
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:

KSL article said:
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
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
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 a moderator:

J_dazzle23

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2013
Messages
643
--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 a moderator:

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
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:

J_dazzle23

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2013
Messages
643
--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 a moderator:

PistolPackingMomma

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2011
Messages
1,884
Location
SC
--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? :lol:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
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
 

J_dazzle23

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2013
Messages
643
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
 

Dave_pro2a

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
2,132
Location
, ,
I got the impression that bagpiper was quite libertarian in his ideals

You must be referring to this user:

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/member.php?26660-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:

J_dazzle23

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2013
Messages
643
You must be referring to this user:

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/member.php?26660-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
 

Dave_pro2a

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
2,132
Location
, ,
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 ;/
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
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.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
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.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
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.

That was put in there to protect lobbyists and legislators.
 
Last edited:

nonameisgood

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
1,008
Location
Big D
"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
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
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:
Top