America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Louisiana’s governor signed a first-of-its-kind bill Thursday afternoon that makes it a hate crime to target police officers and first responders.

Called the “Blue Lives Matter” bill, the measure expands the state’s hate crime law to include law enforcement officers, firefighters and other emergency medical services personnel.

“The overarching message is that hate crimes will not be tolerated in Louisiana,” Democratic Gov. John Bel Edwards told FoxNews.com in a written statement. He added that he has “great respect” for the work that law enforcement officers do and the daily risks they take.

“I thought it was critical that we add protections for the people that protect us,” state Rep. Lance Harris, a Republican, told FoxNews.com.

Harris authored the bill after the murder of Darren Goforth, a 47-year-old Texas sheriff who was gunned down at a gas station “because he wore a uniform.”

The gunman approached Goforth, a 10-year veteran of the Harris County Sheriff’s Office, from behind unloading bullets into him even after the officer fell to the ground.

In many states like Louisiana, there are existing laws covering bias-motivated crimes against people based on their gender, race, religion and sexual orientation.

Under Louisiana’s new measure, anyone convicted of a hate crime-related felony could face up to an additional $5,000 fine and five years behind bars. For a misdemeanor, the punishment comes with a $500 fine and an additional six-month prison sentence.

The “Blue Lives Matter” bill easily passed both state legislative houses.

“The signing of this bill gives us all an opportunity to pause and remember the extraordinary acts by seemingly ordinary people who serve our state as first responders,” State Police Superintendent Col. Mike Edmonson said. “Whereas citizens flee danger, police, fire and EMS personnel run to it.”

But not everyone is on board. The Louisiana chapter of the Black Youth Project 100 purportedly had called on the governor to veto the bill.

Other critics like the Anti-Defamation League have also come out against the bill, arguing that providing protections to law enforcement under the “hate crime” statute is counterproductive.

“Adding professional categories to the current Hate Crimes statute deters efforts from protecting against identity-based crimes,” Anti-Defamation League Regional Director Allison Padilla-Goodman said in a written release. “We are not happy that it is being signed into law.”

In a letter to Edwards, Padilla-Goodman said the bill “confuses the purpose of the Hate Crimes Act.” She also said it “weakens its impact by adding more categories of people who are already better protected under other laws.”

Padilla-Goodman argues that hate crime legislation was created to protect people from discrimination against race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability, ethnicity and gender identity.

“Proving the bias intent is very different for these categories than it is for the bias intent of a crime against a law enforcement officer,” she wrote.

Emails to the Black Youth Project 100 were not immediately returned.



for the bill.

I don't like the whole "hate crime" theme.

A crime is a crime. Does it really matter what motivated it? Should it matter the color of skin of the victim or assailant? or what clothes/uniform they were wearing, or what their job is?

What we need to do is make the punishment FIT the crime and then stick to it.

Do people understand the purpose of hate crimes laws?

The idea is pretty simple. Whether one likes hate crime laws or not, the idea is simple. They are intended to protect groups that are being let down by the system.... I mean, I'm talking about the classics... Gay bashing being chalked up to just some harmless boys having fun... Cross burnings or other crimes intended to terrorize a community and keep it "in its place"....

With that in mind, it seems odd that one would suggest that a group which is very much part of the system needs additional protection from the system.

that's what I meant to say, I swear.

Exactly.

well, not all hate crimes end in murder. Murder is murder, and if the motive was gay hatred, or race hatred, or money for drugs crime gone wrong, it still ended in murder.

But Victor does give some good examples of "everyday" hate crimes that had been considered OK for too long which is the intended purpose of protecting groups on the fringe, or at least outside the cone of protection.

*the smell way = the same way.

I think we were all OK with the smell way.

I heard that's where they hang out....

I'm really curious how drafter figures hitting some guy because he flipped you off counts as "he started it"...

Blu lives do matter....


just saying.... Blu

there should be puppy-dog hate crime laws so people don't hit them in their moufs...

+1

MACS, in theory I agree with you. Unfortunately hate crime laws are here to stay. That is why I think all should be protected by hate crime laws.

I think so... it's called Capital Murder and you get to die for it... as you should...

Yes. It's a subsection of assault.

Just as 'assault under color of authority' is a subsection. Cops who beat people needlessly are charged with this.

As I said, if we just enforce the laws we already have FAIRLY, we would do well.

MACS... We have a big country. And until recently if you left it up to the society in some regions, beating certain people wasn't considered as bad as beating others. So again, how do you in California ensure that Alabama judges don't reflect local "society" opinions regarding assault on specific groups?

What are we doing with the 'hate crime' laws? Enacting a law so the retarded judges will enforce the laws we already have? If they're ignoring one, what makes you think they won't ignore the other?

Hold the lawyers/courts/judges accountable for enforcing the laws we have. Don't make new ones... fire their asses when they don't enforce the old ones.

I jokingly did this in the presence of a former gf and her mom. The mom turned out to be a NJ wop.
Needless to say, that relationship did not last much longer. Oh well.

I disagree with vic on this one.

A crime is a crime.

I'm anti affirmative action of any type as well. Many will agree with me on that one until you bring up veterans preference etc. It turns out many think they are against hate crimes, affirmative action etc when in effect they just disagree with the current iteration or who they perceive it befitting. When it's a group they prefer they consider it doing the right thing or necessary. When it's a group they don't prefer (not hate or dislike.... just not their preference) its outrageous. It's selective yet if you don't really think about it you cloak it as common sense, necessary etc.

Qualifications are qualifications and a veterans relevant experience should certainly be weighted appropriately as should anyone's. But when you move past that to weighing it more heavily due to patriotism, recognizing the politicos farked things up and put them unnecessarily in harms way, recognizing a glut of them coming back and wanting to help them to feel good etc. you have moved into the same justifications as those trying to benefit their preferred social group under affirmative action.

It's human nature. I do it to. I'm just willing to admit it.

You want the punishment for any given crime to be more severe if it is directed towards a group you like, respect, identify with, feel are underprotected and/or support than if it is towards one you hold in lower regard. You can even justify it as a preventative or in the case a response to another group doing wrong. The folks you disagree with believe the same thing from their side. Whatever it's cool. You support first responders at a higher level than the black lives matters group. Truth be told so do I. But if not exactly the same it is very very similar.

Happy memorial day LOL.

T... I'm not saying to have hate crime laws. I'm just trying to get to the root of why they are in place now (and asking if that appropriately compares to the status law enforcement already has in society, especially within the legal framework)

MACS - how do you expect to fire elected judges? Most normal crime is prosecuted at the state level. The people who would be responsible for firing the judges are the same people who chose them (possibly because they will enforce certain crimes against certain groups differently). Again, given that states have the right to run their state, how do you in California ensure that yahoo judges in Alabama don't consistently hand out minimum penalty for certain crimes while dropping the hammer on other groups?

This started (to my thin understanding, so feel free to correct me) with allowing the federal government to prosecute hate crimes, probably because in certain states these crimes were being handled by locally elected judges who had a lot of the same opinions as the people committing the crime. That's much different than just "adding more laws for judges to ignore" as you're changing the judge handing out the sentence.

2 words for you: sentencing requirements.

Minimums and maximums based on the crime and the circumstances. The president is elected too, and we can fire him if he effs up... ask Nixon.

MACS... You miss the local vs federal point.
To the best of my knowledge you cannot do anything about a judge in another state. Only the people who elected him can.
Similarly, you're asking for federally mandated minimum sentences on every crime down to assault.... I thought you were all states rights?

... And TW is right. As long as you have a "minimum and maximum" penalty, whatever that is, some regions will still apply the minimum for crimes against certain groups, and the maximum against others. It does nothing but slightly narrow the difference.