• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Bachman Nutcase Overdrive

Alferd_Packer

Philosopher
Alferd_Packer
Joined
Jul 3, 2007
Messages
8,746
Michelle and her pretzel logic regarding the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, AKA the Matthew Shepard Act

This bill, if it passes tomorrow, will have to be considered then a part of President Obama's 100-day legacy. And on his watch, if he chooses to sign this bill--and from all indications it appears he will--this will lay the foundation to further deny Americans First Amendment rights.

I think it also, we could say, denies equal protection under the law. If you have an individual going through a crosswalk and a person is in their car and they hit that person in the crosswalk, it is up to the person who is hit to file the charge if it was a hate crime or not. So if the person is gay, and that is the status that is being protected, and the person driving the car is straight, would it be a hate crime if the person driving the car who is straight hit the person who is gay in the crosswalk? So does it say, then, that that life that was hit in the crosswalk is more valuable because it was a gay life versus if the person who was in the car, who is gay, who hits the person in the crosswalk, who is straight, does that mean that the straight person in the crosswalk doesn't have a cause of action against the person who is gay who is driving that car? It raises the question of whose life is valuable and whose isn't. That is the question that Mr. Gohmert raised earlier.
Click to expand...

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/congress/?q=node/77531&id=8958780


She also throws in a lovely parting shot

I think we are seeing a little bit of death today in this Chamber. We are seeing what our Founders bled and died for go away a little bit more in this Chamber tonight. We can hear Patrick Henry. We can hear echos of Jefferson, echos of Madison this evening in this Chamber. What would Daniel Webster say?
Click to expand...


God, I love that woman. LOL
 
Is there a reason that deliberately running someone over because they're gay needs to be punished more harshly than deliberately running them over so you can steal their money?
 
Beerina said:
Is there a reason that deliberately running someone over because they're gay needs to be punished more harshly than deliberately running them over so you can steal their money?
Click to expand...

Yes, if it is known that that is the reason for the targeting then it causes demonstrably more harm to the community-at-large over that of a simple theft.

Because of this greater harm (evidenced in the fear in the gay community of further acts like this one) the punishment should be more harsh.

The criminal justice system takes these kinds of things into account all the time. Motive is always considered in courts of law, even for cases that don't involve "hate". Its why we have manslaughter and 1st and 2nd degree murder. And since a hate crime, such as the targeted beating death of a woman, means there's more harm to the community at large (greater fear among the targeted group) there should be a more severe punishment. Most punishments for crimes are decided on this metric: how much harm does this cause the community? And the crimes which cause the most harm, including hate crimes, get more severe punishments. Someone who kills someone by hitting a baseball through a window by accident will get manslaughter and a reduced sentence. Someone who murders a stranger in cold blood for personal profit gets 1st degree murder and a much longer sentence. Someone who murders a stranger in cold blood because they are a woman gets an even longer sentence (if possible, they could both be in jail for life I concede!).

Since it has ripple effects among those of the group targeted, hate-murder is quantifiably MORE harmful than a murder not comitted for hateful but for personal reasons. And therefore the punishment should be more severe.

Are you arguing that we should introduce a new feature to the criminal justice system, one that discards any scrutiny of motive?
 
Last edited:
Beerina said:
Is there a reason that deliberately running someone over because they're gay needs to be punished more harshly than deliberately running them over so you can steal their money?
Click to expand...

And that is not what crazy Bachman is proposing. She's saying that because someone happens to be gay and the person in the car happens to be straight, that the person in the car could automatically be brought up on hate crime legislation. The legislation doesn't say that and nobody is proposing such a thing, any more than the person in the crosswalk being black and the person in the car being white automatically means racism.

For a hate crime conviction, you have to show intent to intimidate the protected class. If it turned out that the straight person in the car had hate stickers against gays plastered on the car, had phoned in threats to gay bars, and the crosswalk was right outside one of these establishments, then there's a case to be made that this was a hate crime. But the simple situation presented by crazy Bachman isn't going to automatically mean that the person in the car gets charged with a hate crime.
 
Does this law make it illegal to criticize gay people or certain ethnic, religious or political groups? Or does it simply make it illegal to direct violence against them or advocate violence against them?

If the former I object to the bill, if only the latter, I think it's acceptable...


INRM
 
It's a condition that exacerbates a crime, like premeditation or conspiracy.

Please note also that there already exists hate-crime legislation, for the past four decades, that covers hate-crimes on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin.

This new legislation broadens the definition to cover gender, sexual orientation, and physical or mental handicap. Apparently this is the precise point at which liberty ends and tyranny begins.
 
Last edited:
Beerina said:
Is there a reason that deliberately running someone over because they're gay needs to be punished more harshly than deliberately running them over so you can steal their money?
Click to expand...

Robbery is generally a random act. Gay bashing is usually part of a movement. Did you know that it used to be an acceptable defense for assault if you thought a gay person was looking at you with lust?
 
Praktik said:
Yes, if it is known that that is the reason for the targeting then it causes demonstrably more harm to the community-at-large over that of a simple theft.

Because of this greater harm (evidenced in the fear in the gay community of further acts like this one) the punishment should be more harsh.

The criminal justice system takes these kinds of things into account all the time. Motive is always considered in courts of law, even for cases that don't involve "hate". Its why we have manslaughter and 1st and 2nd degree murder. And since a hate crime, such as the targeted beating death of a woman, means there's more harm to the community at large (greater fear among the targeted group) there should be a more severe punishment. Most punishments for crimes are decided on this metric: how much harm does this cause the community? And the crimes which cause the most harm, including hate crimes, get more severe punishments. Someone who kills someone by hitting a baseball through a window by accident will get manslaughter and a reduced sentence. Someone who murders a stranger in cold blood for personal profit gets 1st degree murder and a much longer sentence. Someone who murders a stranger in cold blood because they are a woman gets an even longer sentence (if possible, they could both be in jail for life I concede!).

Since it has ripple effects among those of the group targeted, hate-murder is quantifiably MORE harmful than a murder not comitted for hateful but for personal reasons. And therefore the punishment should be more severe.

Are you arguing that we should introduce a new feature to the criminal justice system, one that discards any scrutiny of motive?
Click to expand...



I would certainly hope that someone who accidentally killed someone in a one-in-a-million baseball mishap wouldn't be charged with any crime.
 
Love the thread title! :thumbsup:

INRM said:
Does this law make it illegal to criticize gay people or certain ethnic, religious or political groups? Or does it simply make it illegal to direct violence against them or advocate violence against them?

If the former I object to the bill, if only the latter, I think it's acceptable...
Click to expand...

According to wingnut media, this sort of legislation will, if not lead to the outlawing of street preaching and pastors being able to talk Biblically in the pulpit, lay the legal foundation for that happening.

They even cite a case in the UK where a street preacher was offering Biblical guidance to homosexuals which then assulted him, and he was arrested under British hate crimes laws. They then add he died a short time later.
 
It seems this BNO problem is getting out of hand.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom