US Senate adds gays to hate crime legislation

[Hansmeister]

He was a 20-year member of a racist religious cult.  Sorry, the evidence is pretty clear there.  But then again, I'm just a typical white man, clinging to my guns and my bible, so what do I know.

Not much about criminal law, apparently.

Why? I was right on the law issue.

[Neil]

You don't have to go to South Africa for that.  Black-on-white crime is far more common that white-on-black crime.  Black racists are far more common than white racists (see White House).  Of course white-on-white and black-on-black crime is vastly more common than crime across racial divides.

I missed you. 

Wait till he shows you statistics of all these gay gangs getting together to beat up breeders coming out of hetero clubs.

I thought we had already established in this thread that no number of homosexuals would be sufficient to defeat a healthy heterosexual male.

[Capetan Mihali]

He was a 20-year member of a racist religious cult.  Sorry, the evidence is pretty clear there.  But then again, I'm just a typical white man, clinging to my guns and my bible, so what do I know.

Not much about criminal law, apparently.

Why? I was right on the law issue.

In NY State at the very least, the killing of a police officer is treated as a more severe category of murder than the killing of your average man on the street.  Granted, police are not the only ones in the 1st Degree category (also includes COs, "peace officers," witnesses), but it is quite clearly treated differently.

Besides, assaulting an officer is a special offense beyond assaulting Joe Sixpack everywhere in this country, so the police quite clearly occupy a special position in terms of laws about being bodily harmed...

[Faeelin]

Why? I was right on the law issue.

You thought hate crimes didn't protect white people, and then you said "police are not especially protected under the law", which has shown to be false in the case of the NY; it's also true in the case of many, many other states. If you want me to dig through state statutes, I will, though it might take a while.

[Hansmeister]

He was a 20-year member of a racist religious cult.  Sorry, the evidence is pretty clear there.  But then again, I'm just a typical white man, clinging to my guns and my bible, so what do I know.

Not much about criminal law, apparently.

Why? I was right on the law issue.

In NY State at the very least, the killing of a police officer is treated as a more severe category of murder than the killing of your average man on the street.  Granted, police are not the only ones in the 1st Degree category (also includes COs, "peace officers," witnesses), but it is quite clearly treated differently.

Besides, assaulting an officer is a special offense beyond assaulting Joe Sixpack everywhere in this country, so the police quite clearly occupy a special position in terms of laws about being bodily harmed...

But it is only treated as more severe when it was committed while the police officer was engaged in law enforcement.  That is, the reason it is an aggravated offense is not because it was a police officer, but because the murder did damage to the law above and beyond just the murder of the individual by inhibiting the state from carrying out its responsibility.  It wouldn't apply if he was an off duty cop.

[Hansmeister]

Why? I was right on the law issue.

You thought hate crimes didn't protect white people, and then you said "police are not especially protected under the law", which has shown to be false in the case of the NY; it's also true in the case of many, many other states. If you want me to dig through state statutes, I will, though it might take a while.

Of course I didn't state that hate crimes didn't protect white people, and police officers aren't especially protected under the law when being victims just for being cops  (at least not in the two cases cited so far, though I wouldn't rule out that a state would have such a law, just as some states have laws on hate crims that I would find objectionable). 

[Faeelin]

But it is only treated as more severe when it was committed while the police officer was engaged in law enforcement.  That is, the reason it is an aggravated offense is not because it was a police officer, but because the murder did damage to the law above and beyond just the murder of the individual by inhibiting the state from carrying out its responsibility.  It wouldn't apply if he was an off duty cop.

Interesting. Does the legislative history bear out that rationale?

[Capetan Mihali]

But it is only treated as more severe when it was committed while the police officer was engaged in law enforcement.  That is, the reason it is an aggravated offense is not because it was a police officer, but because the murder did damage to the law above and beyond just the murder of the individual by inhibiting the state from carrying out its responsibility.  It wouldn't apply if he was an off duty cop.

You wrote: "police officers are not especially protected under the law."  It's quite clear that they are. 

Beyond that, I think it's a relevant analogy for hate crime legislation.  Someone who kills a gay/black/etc. man indiscriminately during a home invasion robbery would not be charged under any hate crime legislation as far as I know; it is only to the extent that he is "being" gay/black/etc. in the eyes of the offender that it qualifies as a hate crime.  Likewise for killing a police officer; he is only "being" a police officer when he is on-duty and can be recognized as such.  The NY Law puts it:   

the intended victim was a police officer as defined in subdivision
  34 of section 1.20 of the criminal procedure law who was at the time  of
  the killing engaged in the course of performing his official duties, and
  the  defendant  knew  or  reasonably should have known that the intended
  victim was a police officer

[Faeelin]

Of course I didn't state that hate crimes didn't protect white people,

Indeed. When you said:

Imagine if, say SC, had a law that would proscribe a harsher punishment for a black man who killed a white woman because of ethnicity.  This would rightly lead to outraged cries of institutional racism.

You meant "I acknowledge that the law as it stands proscribes a harsher punishment for a black man who killed a white woman because of ethnicity, and this has not led to outraged cries of institutional racism. I am actually referring to a hypothetical where the law only protects minorities from hate crimes. But since that isn't the law under discussion, I am offering a strange hypothetical no one is defending.

I fully recognize that equal protection arguments aren't relevant to the hate crimes on the books, since they protect all victims of attacks based on race, religion, gender, and now sexual orientation equally. But What if, man? What if?"

[ulmont]

It's a hate crime to kill a homosexual yelling "Die, you motherfucking queer" but it's not a hate crime to kill your neighbor yellling "Die, you fucking asshole neighbor". Both people are dead. Both people were hated enough to be killed by someone. Why should one get treated different than the other?

Because the former is additionally an act of terrorism, putting other homosexuals in a heightened state of fear, while the latter doesn't actually cause the rest of your neighbors to be more scared once you're locked up.

[Hansmeister]

But it is only treated as more severe when it was committed while the police officer was engaged in law enforcement.  That is, the reason it is an aggravated offense is not because it was a police officer, but because the murder did damage to the law above and beyond just the murder of the individual by inhibiting the state from carrying out its responsibility.  It wouldn't apply if he was an off duty cop.

You wrote: "police officers are not especially protected under the law."  It's quite clear that they are. 

Beyond that, I think it's a relevant analogy for hate crime legislation.  Someone who kills a gay/black/etc. man indiscriminately during a home invasion robbery would not be charged under any hate crime legislation as far as I know; it is only to the extent that he is "being" gay/black/etc. in the eyes of the offender that it qualifies as a hate crime.  Likewise for killing a police officer; he is only "being" a police officer when he is on-duty and can be recognized as such.  The NY Law puts it:   

the intended victim was a police officer as defined in subdivision
  34 of section 1.20 of the criminal procedure law who was at the time  of
  the killing engaged in the course of performing his official duties, and
  the  defendant  knew  or  reasonably should have known that the intended
  victim was a police officer

Not really, because the way it is worded if the cop was off-duty and the murderer knew he was a cop it didn't count as a aggravated circumstance.  The cop had to have been on duty and the defendant should've known he was a police officer for it to count.  Ergo, the aggravated circumstance lies in the harm to law enforcement, not the law enforcer.

[Hansmeister]

Of course I didn't state that hate crimes didn't protect white people,

Indeed. When you said:

Imagine if, say SC, had a law that would proscribe a harsher punishment for a black man who killed a white woman because of ethnicity.  This would rightly lead to outraged cries of institutional racism.

You meant "I acknowledge that the law as it stands proscribes a harsher punishment for a black man who killed a white woman because of ethnicity, and this has not led to outraged cries of institutional racism. I am actually referring to a hypothetical where the law only protects minorities from hate crimes. But since that isn't the law under discussion, I am offering a strange hypothetical no one is defending.

I fully recognize that equal protection arguments aren't relevant to the hate crimes on the books, since they protect all victims of attacks based on race, religion, gender, and now sexual orientation equally. But What if, man? What if?"

You know I was using it as an allegory for singling out certain groups for being entitled for special protection, not as an actual example.  Apparently, that was beyond your ability to grasp.  hence the use of "What if".

[Faeelin]

You know I was using it as an allegory for singling out certain groups for being entitled for special protection, not as an actual example.  Apparently, that was beyond your ability to grasp.  hence the use of "What if".

Yes, but the problem is your allegory makes no sense since hate crime legislation protects all groups, a point you now purport to acknowledge.

[Hansmeister]

It's a hate crime to kill a homosexual yelling "Die, you motherfucking queer" but it's not a hate crime to kill your neighbor yellling "Die, you fucking asshole neighbor". Both people are dead. Both people were hated enough to be killed by someone. Why should one get treated different than the other?

Because the former is additionally an act of terrorism, putting other homosexuals in a heightened state of fear, while the latter doesn't actually cause the rest of your neighbors to be more scared once you're locked up.

Why would the other gays have to be "in a heightened state of fear" any more than the neighbors once the perp is locked up?  And if they were, how would a hate crimes law actually have any impact on that "heightened state of fear"?

[Hansmeister]

You know I was using it as an allegory for singling out certain groups for being entitled for special protection, not as an actual example.  Apparently, that was beyond your ability to grasp.  hence the use of "What if".

Yes, but the problem is your allegory makes no sense since hate crime legislation protects all groups, a point you now purport to acknowledge.

I don't see goths on that list, or trekkies, or the flat earth society.  So apparently not all groups are on the list.  An I don't know where you think I acknowledge that all groups are protected.