|
thompsonx -> RE: MATTHEW SHEPARD TORTURED, MURDERED BY GAY LOVER (9/17/2013 5:37:25 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf
You used the comment that people that do not want/agree/whatever with hate crime laws just want the days of being able to shoot someone they hate and be charged with improper discharge of a firearm. So I have countered that with the fact that new laws were not needed, especially if the old ones were not being upheld. Instead the laws should be forced to be upheld for all.
Please tell us just what the fed doj can do? Can they retry the murderer?
Perhaps there is a reason for a federal law? Is it possible that it might prevent the corrupt officials not being punished?
quote:
You have since answered a hypothetical that supports my position
Not so
quote:
that yelling a derogatory while punching them does not constitute a hate crime and instead it is the basis of the act,
The bassis of the act of battery-one crime. If it can be proved that you attacked me to rob me that would be a second charge. If it can be proved that you attacked me because of bigotry that would be a second charge. Why that is not clear to you confuses me.
quote:
as well as try to obfuscate things by placing them in different areas that are not similar.
This means what????
quote:
Just like below where I correct you yet again,
So far I have not been corrected about a fucking thing.
quote:
and now you switch to the "but it is two crimes" line.
Where did I ever say it was less than two crimes? I realize it is easier to argue against things I did not say but then those remarks would be directed at someone that is not me.
quote:
So I will respond to that.
In most violent crime laws there is a graduation of violence. You do not charge someone that murdered someone with assault of any type, battery of any type, but only with the homicide.
Not factually correct=bullshit
quote:
With hate crimes it is an add on law only, and not one that stands on it's own.
In a word "bullshit"
quote:
The reason being is there are already laws against various forms of violence. We had to actually create and pass that law for the two crimes to be there, or should we say an additional element of an existing crime to be more accurate.
No "we" may not say that. You may say that but that would make you mistaken.
quote:
Now we have covered that. My stance is still the same and you have done nothing to refute it.
Perhaps a cite of the laws/rules you say exist and cites of how they have been applied as your post claim.
quote:
Many say the hate crime laws came about because current laws were not being enforced, and you even eluded to that with the original comment to me.
I did not allude to it I was quite specific as to it having happened. A few google clicks would validate this.
quote:
If the Justice Dept were to investigate and bring charges in those cases, then it would take care of the corrupt officials that are not doing their job. The Hate Crime laws are unneeded.
That was what happened the doj did investigate and the civil rights laws were passed to deal with that...someone has not done their home work. Were you unaware just how those laws got passed? Did you think some bureaucrat just made them up and imposed them upon us?
quote:
In your case of the serial killer they are all handled equally under the law. All of the ones that hold a conviction are being punished with equitable application of the law. 1 punishment divided by 10 victims would be each one gaining 10% of the outcome. In the next case 1 punishment divided by 5 victims would be 20% of the punishment. Each case is handled equitably.
Saying so does not make it so.
quote:
Now that this red herring is done, I suppose you will either disagree, offer another red herring or comparable obfuscation that does nothing to refute what I originally said.
Once again we are being given a glimpse of the length of someone's penis...how droll[8|]
quote:
I understand many that post here see the back and forth as some type of game, but circles is not a game I enjoy playing as it leads to no where.
The block button is always an option
quote:
Now where is the support for your statement that everyone that disagrees with hate crime laws just want the days of shooting a black and getting away with it back? That was the original disagreement.
So far I have seen no refutation of my original statement. History backs up my original statement.
quote:
I can keep shooting the red herrings as you launch them, or point out when you side track but the return investments diminishes after a few times.
The facts are that this civil rights legislation was written in response to the lack of vigorous prosecution of certian classes of criminals so laws were written to preclude that. To seek to destroy those safeguards is prima facia evidence of a wish to return to the times when those safeguards were not in place.
|
|
|
|
