IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 1 active user | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New cant be a hate crime if the perpetrators are black
stupid people thinking that rape torture and execution is a hate crime because the victims were white, you all know that is impossible
[link|http://www.washtimes.com/national/20021007-5521566.htm|link] and for those people crying about equal coverage are whiners because if it doesnt happen to a minority it is not news. Move along now nothing to see here.
thanx,
bill
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]

qui mori didicit servire dedidicit
New How to determine if it was a hate crime.
1. Was the victim specifically targeted because of their ethnicity/religion/sex/sexual orientation?

Yes: Hate crime.
No: Crime.

From what I know of the case (admittedly limited) this was a case of a couple of freaks who decided that power came from the barrel of a gun, and wrongfully exercized that power. There was no evidence presented in the article that the two perpetrators did what they did because the targets were white - in fact, I'd be willing to bet that the victims were chosen because it was likely that they had money.

In the dragging death case, an argument could be made that the victim was chosen because he was black.
End of world rescheduled for day after tomorrow. Something should probably be done. Please advise.
New Have you heard of this?
From this article - [link|http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=1912|Black Racism: The Hate Crime That Dare Not Speak It's Name]
Everybody in America, for example, knows who James Byrd is, and that he was brutally murdered by three whites in Jasper Texas four years ago. Byrd's lynchers offered him a lift in their pickup truck, beat him and chained him and dragged him to his death. An entire nation was outraged and guilty. The President issued a statement, legislators wrung their hands and the media keened over the inhumanity of the act and what it portended for the country's future.

Four years later - this year in fact - a white man named Ken Tillery, hitched a ride in Jasper, Texas. He was given a lift by four black men who then murdered him to a deafening national silence. Like Byrd, Tillery was held hostage and beaten. Then he was run over and crushed to death. The copycat nature of the crime made it a natural news story. But there was none, save a modest account in the Houston Chronicle, to which nobody paid any attention. This savagery was apparently nothing. The pigments were politically incorrect. It was only some white guy, whose ancestors probably owned slaves.

Darrell Spice, Jr.

[link|http://home.houston.rr.com/spiceware/|SpiceWare] - We don't do Windows, it's too much of a chore

New point == made
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]

qui mori didicit servire dedidicit
New Not specifically.
And if you note, I didn't rule out black-on-white hate crime - just indicated that the news story in question didn't give any evidence that it was black-on-white hate crime.

Quite frankly, initiating violence against another person is really crappy, no matter what the reason - and should be treated as such, regardless of the reason.
End of world rescheduled for day after tomorrow. Something should probably be done. Please advise.
New That's the truth
Quite frankly, initiating violence against another person is really crappy, no matter what the reason - and should be treated as such, regardless of the reason.

When I still watched South Park, they did an episode about "hate crimes".

Darrell Spice, Jr.

[link|http://home.houston.rr.com/spiceware/|SpiceWare] - We don't do Windows, it's too much of a chore

New You're right, but I think hate crime laws unconstitutional
Question: What makes a hate crime a hate crime?

Answer: The reason for selecting the victim.

In other words, the thoughts of the criminal. What the criminal was thinking when planning or carrying out the crime turns a normal crime into a hate crime, for certain kinds of thoughts.

Sounds a bit too Orwellian to me. Sounds like a clear violation of the 1st Amendment.

Brian Bronson
New I think an "equal protection" argument works better.
I too am troubled by hate-crime laws.

Yes, members of certain groups have had a history of being treated badly because of their membership. But it seems to me that the [link|http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxiv.html|14th Amendment] argues that hate-crime laws are unconstitutional.

Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[...]


But I'm sure there are arguments that say that h-c laws don't violate this amendment.

Cheers,
Scott.
New Nah. Going with brother Bronson on this
It seems you need some "thought police" to determine if the motives were simple opportunism or inspired by hatred.
"A civilian gang of thieving lobbyists for the military industrial complex is running the White House. If to be against them is considered unpatriotic -- Hell, then call me a traitor."
-- Hunter S. Thompson
New All crime is thought crime.
There are very, very few situations where the state of mind of the perp is not a deciding factor.

The difference between self defense and first degree murder is the degree of fear that the killer felt. The act is the same. Thus, murder is a thought crime.

Even posession of contraband is a thought crime - if you can convince the relevant authority that you had no idea that you had it (it was stored without your knowledge or consent and despite your reasonable efforts to prevent it) you are probably clear. Thus, it isn't the existance of contraband that is the crime, but the knowledge of the contraband.

----
Whatever
New We are no longer a Constitutional Republic
Haven't you read the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act yet? It isn't just the XIVth amendment trashed. (And without an Amendment even! to that Constitution we are now disregarding for 'security')

Now if we ever overthrow this cabal, we can talk about undoing lots of illegal laws. And clarify 'hate' crimes too.


Ashton
New Don't think it's better, though in theory should apply too
I think it's a harder case to argue. I'm sure the law as written doesn't say "white rascists who murder blacks"... Even though that IS how it is enforced. Selective enforcement should make it unconstitutional, but I think that's harder to argue, while the thoughtcrime aspect should be a slam dunk against the First Amd.

Why do I think it's harder? Take affirmative action as used by the governments. Not as advertised, or in theory, but as implemented: racial and gender quotas in hiring, promoting and firing. These laws are written to treat people differently. This is blatantly in violation of the 14th, and yet the laws have been around for a long time. And being written is more clear cut than just being selectively enforced.

Plus, you have to gather all sorts of cases where the h-c law is selectively applied.

I think that adds up to being a harder argument than straight freedom of thought.

Brian Bronson
New of course you are right, as the prosecutor said
thay are facing the death penalty SWTF. Same as those involved in the dragging crime in Texas. However to Inthane according to that article the records of the case have been sealed so you will not know what was said to the victim that survived unless she tells all.
thanx,
bill
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]

qui mori didicit servire dedidicit
New I might be misunderstanding you.
I didn't say that the records were sealed, I said that the article did not present evidence that the attack was a hate crime by my definition. IMO, an act with intent to target a specific group with the intent to intimidate should technically be considered terrorism, not a "hate crime" - it fits the definition, after all.
End of world rescheduled for day after tomorrow. Something should probably be done. Please advise.
New No we're ok There wasnt enough evidence in the article
to say one way or the other. I brought up the whole thing because if the perps were white and the victims black this would be all day news everyday from now until next year.
thanx,
bill
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]

qui mori didicit servire dedidicit
     cant be a hate crime if the perpetrators are black - (boxley) - (14)
         How to determine if it was a hate crime. - (inthane-chan) - (4)
             Have you heard of this? - (SpiceWare) - (3)
                 point == made -NT - (boxley)
                 Not specifically. - (inthane-chan) - (1)
                     That's the truth - (SpiceWare)
         You're right, but I think hate crime laws unconstitutional - (bbronson) - (8)
             I think an "equal protection" argument works better. - (Another Scott) - (4)
                 Nah. Going with brother Bronson on this - (Silverlock)
                 All crime is thought crime. - (mhuber)
                 We are no longer a Constitutional Republic - (Ashton)
                 Don't think it's better, though in theory should apply too - (bbronson)
             of course you are right, as the prosecutor said - (boxley) - (2)
                 I might be misunderstanding you. - (inthane-chan) - (1)
                     No we're ok There wasnt enough evidence in the article - (boxley)

Urine is turned into bouyancy.
111 ms