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

Last post 3 months ago by fishinguitarman. 148 replies replies.
3 Pages<123>
Shocking moment conservative activist is punched in the face on UC-Berkeley campus...
DrafterX Offline
#51 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 87,941
I've heard many peoples say they hate Trump... That's prolly treason and/or sedition... Mellow
victor809 Offline
#52 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 18,026
It's not double jeopordy... They aren't being tried for the crime a second time, it's simply adding to the sentence.

Tell me tail/stieg... Do you support sentence reduction for extenuating circumstances? Guy finds his wife banging his brother and shoots both... Maybe he gets 10years instead of 40... Do you agree with that?

victor809 Offline
#53 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 18,026
Given what he's doing to our country it's patriotism drafter...
dstieger Offline
#54 Posted:
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 9,870
victor809 wrote:
It's not double jeopordy... They aren't being tried for the crime a second time, it's simply adding to the sentence.

Tell me tail/stieg... Do you support sentence reduction for extenuating circumstances? Guy finds his wife banging his brother and shoots both... Maybe he gets 10years instead of 40... Do you agree with that?


Nope. Not if actions fit the homicide designation/definition. Why? How does that make what point?
DrafterX Offline
#55 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 87,941
Temporary Hate.... Mellow
victor809 Offline
#56 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 18,026
It seems to be a pretty common practice to adjust sentencing based on the "mindset" of the criminal. We are willing to reduce their sentence if we believe they're otherwise upstanding citizens who won't do it again... All supposition of what's going on in their heads.

Why wouldn't we increase the sentences if we have strong evidence that they will commit the crime again (ie hate crimes)... If you're going to drag a guy behind your truck for miles... With the only reason being they are gay or black... then why wouldn't you do it again after you're released? You're gonna run into more black or gay people. Nowhere in the punishment do we have any rehabilitation to stop you from doing it ..

So... If you're ok with sentences being lower for some, you are already defending the idea it should be higher for others...

(And more to the point... It isn't like our crimes aren't already given a range of punishments.... 10-20... Or 5-10... Or whatever... We already acknowledge that some crimes require more punishment than others when the crime on the books is the same. This just codifies certain minimums.)
frankj1 Offline
#57 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 26,940
Speyside wrote:
Can't believe you said that Frank. As long as someone is not preaching violence they have an absolute right to their viewpoints, racist or not. Remember, this is America. Also since he was representing a group and attacked due to that drops ideology this should be a hate crime. This is the hypocrisy of hate crimes. There is a double standard in place.

what did you think I said incorrectly?

Victor sees a difference between hating a person or group for characteristics with which they were born...had no choice but to have those traits (race/skin color etc.

as opposed to hating a person with different opinions from yours, things about which they had choices.

I did not finish the comment about the right or wrong of violence against either. I gave it the old dot dot dot.
Speyside Offline
#58 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 7,634
Victor, should some ones guilt, and sentencing be any more or less based on the go up or groups the victim belongs to? This is the tub to me. If anyone is dragged for miles behind a truck the Bastide driver needs to go away for ever, or be executed. You say it isn't double jeopardy, but I think it is and here is why. If someone is not charged with a hate crime, if found innocent that is it. If someone is charged with the crime and a hate crime, if found innocent they can then be tried for the hate crime. On the other hand if found guilty they can get an additional sentence due to it being a hate crime. I see this as double jeopardy. I follow what you are saying, but think it is semantics. Yes they are different laws, but I believe the hate crime law should be found unconstitutional due to trying an individual twice for the same crime. The idea of protected groups seems unAmerican to me. Just my 2 cents.
dstieger Offline
#59 Posted:
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 9,870
Speyside wrote:
The idea of protected groups seems unAmerican to me. Just my 2 cents.


You have every right to your opinion, but I gotta say that this one is going to be a tough sell.
CRA, ADA, ERA (someday?)....Title IX...Equal Pay Act, EEOC....they're all going to want to argue with you
delta1 Offline
#60 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 16,681
Hate Crime is NOT a crime...it is penalty enhancement, to increase the jail time or fine for those who target specific categories of people and commit underlying crimes against them: assault, battery, disturb the peace, rape, murder...prosecutor has to prove the person is guilty of the crime and also prove that he committed the crime specifically because of the victim's protected class...

it is not a crime to hate anybody, but if you commit a crime against someone you hate,, and the reason for the hatred is within the categories of protected classes, then you're going to do more time or pay a higher fine, if the prosecutor can prove that was the motivation for the crime...

if tail smacks me for something I posted, just because I'm a chinese american doesn't elevate his attack to a hate crime...the prosecutor must show proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, that my race was the reason tail hit me...


prolly evolved in response to crimes targeting blacks and Jews and other racial, ethnic or religious minorities, where those types of crimes were rarely committed against other people...
Speyside Offline
#61 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 7,634
Delta, why should that matter?
Speyside Offline
#62 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 7,634
Am I misinformed? I thought someone could be convicted at the federal level on a hate crime charge even though they were found innocent of the crime at the state level.
delta1 Offline
#63 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 16,681
perhaps...perhaps not...some states do not prosecute hate crimes very aggressively and in very rare cases, the DOJ may step in...or if the elements of the crime involve interstate boundaries being crossed giving federal court jurisdiction..

being categorized as a hate crime is different than being charged with one...for example the police officer investigating a physical altercation is told by a witness that the guy who got beat up was called homo by the guy doing the beating...he writes it up as a hate crime...

the D.A. interviews the victim and the suspect, and discovers they are former room mates who had a disagreement over money...he prosecutes the battery, but drops the hate crime enhancement since he can't prove the guy was attacked because of his gayness, and not the debt...

meanwhile, all JQPublic knows is that the media/news reports that local police arrested a guy for beating up a gay guy...
Ewok126 Offline
#64 Posted:
Joined: 06-25-2017
Posts: 4,330
So if I beat the chit out of someone at the gas station and do not yell out racial remarks it's not a "Hate Crime" right? But, If I do the exact same thing ( with no racial remarks spoken) at a political rally then it is a "Hate Crime"?

I mean first off, I really wouldnt beat the chit out of anyone I like so in my mind (being what my mind is) would not the act of beating the chit out of someone qualify as a "Hate Crime"

Just so I can be absolutely clear and set straight on the subject of "Hate Crime" does me grudge phugin Mrs Ewok qualify as a "Hate Crime" If so lets not let her in on that one please because that is one "Hate Crime" I do take pleasure in.


Today's word on Sesame Street, brought to you by the letter H and the letter C is "Hate Crime"


Now back to playing with my rock and clear crayon.

Peace.
RobertHively Offline
#65 Posted:
Joined: 01-14-2015
Posts: 455
Grudge fu*kin? Is that a thing? What does it even mean?
RobertHively Offline
#66 Posted:
Joined: 01-14-2015
Posts: 455
grudge fu*k
Hot, but mean-spirited, almost violent sex used to punish someone. Sometimes it's used to get back at a significant other. Sometimes it's used to make the significant other wake up with scars, bruises, and/or the inability to walk straight.
She's hot but annoying. I wanna grudge fu*k her into traction.


Man ppl are fu*ked up.
delta1 Offline
#67 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 16,681
can't be guilty of a hate crime if you are not found guilty of the underlying crime...just like with capital murder...you can't be given the death penalty/capital punishment if you haven't been found guilty of the murder...


thinking bad things about and hating people for whatever reason is NOT a crime...

if you keep your hateful thoughts to yourself, and commit a crime because of hateful reasons, you can avoid a hate crime penalty enhancement, but found guilty of the crime
DrafterX Offline
#68 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 87,941
Hate sex... Usually Temporary... Mellow
Ewok126 Offline
#69 Posted:
Joined: 06-25-2017
Posts: 4,330
RobertHively wrote:
Grudge fu*kin? Is that a thing? What does it even mean?


1: Yes it is a thing at my house. I especially like it when she's pissed at me lmao.

2: Google is your friend lol
Ewok126 Offline
#70 Posted:
Joined: 06-25-2017
Posts: 4,330
DrafterX wrote:
Hate sex... Usually Temporary... Mellow


Its only got to go for 30 seconds
victor809 Offline
#71 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 18,026
Grudge f-king is fun. Used to have a few of the girls I hooked up with in my youth where both of us really didn't like the other that much.

Made for lots of fun...
Ewok126 Offline
#72 Posted:
Joined: 06-25-2017
Posts: 4,330
^^^
I know right!

I like to let her believe it is just going to be make up sex, then, I try to break it because well, I am male so I hide the fact I am still pissed. Then my spirits are lifted when I see her walking funny for the next couple of days.

I can't lie though, she is just as good at it as I am. Nothing like having a raw spot put on ya pecker after a wild ride. I walk funny with pride and chest out cause I know why!
RobertHively Offline
#73 Posted:
Joined: 01-14-2015
Posts: 455
Victor/Ewok I say do what makes you happy as long as the grudge fu*kee is cool with it. Definitely not for me though.

I've done some pretty wild stuff, but never bc I was mad. Lol!

Ewok, 30 seconds? Man I dont look forward to getting old. I cant make fun of you FOGS too much though, bc I realize one day I'll be a geezer too.


victor809 Offline
#74 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 18,026
Psh.... Grudge f-king is nothing.
I remember f-king a girl just because she was the only one around and my ecstacy high was going to run out....

Then there was a girl who I would f-k literally just because it was Sunday. Never any other day... Never had her phone number... Just met her on Sunday.

victor809 Offline
#75 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 18,026
Spey... You might be right about the federal prosecution. I'm way out of my depth on this, so someone like rfenst would have more info.

I suspect what's happening there is hate crime designation makes it a federal crime as opposed to a state crime. Which does kind of allow for a double jeopordy situation you're referring to...

I could be wrong, but I suspect that might be to overcome our more racist states... I suspect what was happening was that good ole boy Joe may drag a homo behind his truck for a few miles and his state courts would find him either not guilty or would give him a slap on the wrist, because everyone in the jury and the judge, hell maybe even the defense attorney, thought he did the right thing....

By making it a federal crime, that takes the state level prejudices out of the equation.

I'm not positive about the above, that's just my guess as to why it was done that way. And you're possibly right, there may be a situation where that sort of becomes a double jeopordy... I'm not sure if there are controls around that or not (of course, I'm also positive that everyone claiming all crimes are hate crimes etc have no idea at all either)...

Speyside Offline
#76 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 7,634
Victor, what you stated is what my understanding has been, including your reasoning. Conceptually I have no issue with the designation of hate crime. My concern is the double jeopardy situation. Technically it is not double jeopardy, but it is trying someone for the same crime twice. I think a hate crime designation should work a little differently. The hate crime at the federal level should be the only trial for the crime, thus avoiding trying someone twice for the same crime.
tailgater Offline
#77 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 23,096
victor809 wrote:
Jesus f-king Christ tail... That's the dumbest argument ever.... And I've been reading your arguments for years.

You care that it's called a "hate" crime? Who cares what it's called? It's an act of violence specifically targeting an individual for some aspect of their being that they did not choose...

Do you think discrimination is no different than just "not liking someone" too?

Get better arguments.


You're trying to get into the head of the assailant.
That's counter productive and a waste of time.
Charge them on the acts committed. It doesn't matter if a black gay dude gets beat up because the assailant is a racist homophobe, or simply a dude hellbent set on beating people up at random.

It
Really
Doesn't
Matter.


At least not for purposes of setting the penalty.



tailgater Offline
#78 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 23,096
dstieger wrote:
We already gots laws for that.....Hate crime laws are redundant.....or, at least ridiculous, because they apply to actions that are already determined to be crimes....but then, on top of that, you have to ASSUME...not even prove....ASSUME what's in the perpetrator's heart and mind. Sure, there's some possible indicating signs/words/symbols....but it still just makes what was already a crime.....a crime.

To what purpose? Is it a deterrent? LOL....prove that one

The only thing it does is make the legislators feel good about themselves....and allows media to sensationalize the **** out of the so-called hate crimes


Or I could have simply agreed with this post.
thank you.
tailgater Offline
#79 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 23,096
victor809 wrote:
It's not double jeopordy... They aren't being tried for the crime a second time, it's simply adding to the sentence.

Tell me tail/stieg... Do you support sentence reduction for extenuating circumstances? Guy finds his wife banging his brother and shoots both... Maybe he gets 10years instead of 40... Do you agree with that?



Sure.
tailgater Offline
#80 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 23,096
victor809 wrote:
It seems to be a pretty common practice to adjust sentencing based on the "mindset" of the criminal. We are willing to reduce their sentence if we believe they're otherwise upstanding citizens who won't do it again... All supposition of what's going on in their heads.

Why wouldn't we increase the sentences if we have strong evidence that they will commit the crime again (ie hate crimes)... If you're going to drag a guy behind your truck for miles... With the only reason being they are gay or black... then why wouldn't you do it again after you're released? You're gonna run into more black or gay people. Nowhere in the punishment do we have any rehabilitation to stop you from doing it ..

So... If you're ok with sentences being lower for some, you are already defending the idea it should be higher for others...

(And more to the point... It isn't like our crimes aren't already given a range of punishments.... 10-20... Or 5-10... Or whatever... We already acknowledge that some crimes require more punishment than others when the crime on the books is the same. This just codifies certain minimums.)


But we're not talking about circumstance. Just the crime.

If a dude sees a guy standing around and goes over and beats him with a bat for no reason, it's assault.

If a racist homophobe has an exchange of words with a black gay guy, and it escalates into a fight, it's assault.

But in your mind, the second guy's crime is worse.

Because YOU assigned a random and fluid set of criteria.


tailgater Offline
#81 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 23,096
delta1 wrote:
Hate Crime is NOT a crime...it is penalty enhancement, to increase the jail time or fine for those who target specific categories of people and commit underlying crimes against them: assault, battery, disturb the peace, rape, murder...prosecutor has to prove the person is guilty of the crime and also prove that he committed the crime specifically because of the victim's protected class...

it is not a crime to hate anybody, but if you commit a crime against someone you hate,, and the reason for the hatred is within the categories of protected classes, then you're going to do more time or pay a higher fine, if the prosecutor can prove that was the motivation for the crime...

if tail smacks me for something I posted, just because I'm a chinese american doesn't elevate his attack to a hate crime...the prosecutor must show proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, that my race was the reason tail hit me...


prolly evolved in response to crimes targeting blacks and Jews and other racial, ethnic or religious minorities, where those types of crimes were rarely committed against other people...


For the record, I wouldn't smack you around.
You might know karate or something.

Herfing
tailgater Offline
#82 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 23,096
victor809 wrote:
Psh.... Grudge f-king is nothing.
I remember f-king a girl just because she was the only one around and my ecstacy high was going to run out....

Then there was a girl who I would f-k literally just because it was Sunday. Never any other day... Never had her phone number... Just met her on Sunday.



Was her name Faith?

victor809 Offline
#83 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 18,026
Dunno the faith reference.... ?
victor809 Offline
#84 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 18,026
Tail...if you support sentence reduction for circumstances, why wouldn't you support higher penalties for circumstances?

Additionally, your mock scenarios are a little.... Fanciful.
How often does someone randomly attack a person with a bat unprovoked? They simply don't usually (when there are random attacks they become big news... Because of their randomness)... Usually if you've got someone hitting someone with a bat (I believe that is not assault, but battery.... No pun intended) it's because they had an argument with them previously...or some pre-existing beef.... OR it's because that person is of a group they want to target.

That's part of the difference with hate crimes. You and I are very unlikely to be randomly attacked by a group of strangers we never interacted with. (Yes there's mugging but we're leaving out "for profit" attacks because those are reasonably equal opportunity). There was a point in our history when that could not be said for gay men, blacks, Asians, Hispanics....

Think of how much people get their panties wadded up when there are random attacks in a city. The DC sniper... There was the overblown paranoia of the "knockout game" BS... When people can randomly be attacked they get scared beyond the rational reality of how likely it is to happen. One could call it a form of terrorism.

victor809 Offline
#85 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 18,026
None of that takes into account the simple potential for recidivism.

If a dude is hitting a guy with a bat for no reason other than a different sexual orientation or skin color... Then he's a lot more likely to do it again than a guy who hit a dude with a bat because he owes him money (the mythical "hit them with a bat for no reason" exists, but is very very rare, you don't make laws around outliers).

Why wouldn't you want that guy in jail longer?
DrafterX Offline
#86 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 87,941
Ram has a bat... ram27bat
victor809 Offline
#87 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 18,026
But ram only beats people who screw up the 500 thread.
DrafterX Offline
#88 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 87,941
True.. true.. Mellow
DrafterX Offline
#89 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 87,941
True.. true.. Mellow
victor809 Offline
#90 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 18,026
Or who double post....
frankj1 Offline
#91 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 26,940
victor809 wrote:
Dunno the faith reference.... ?

only on Sunday...church...
Abrignac Offline
#92 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 14,299
victor809 wrote:
Spey... You might be right about the federal prosecution. I'm way out of my depth on this, so someone like rfenst would have more info.

I suspect what's happening there is hate crime designation makes it a federal crime as opposed to a state crime. Which does kind of allow for a double jeopordy situation you're referring to...

I could be wrong, but I suspect that might be to overcome our more racist states... I suspect what was happening was that good ole boy Joe may drag a homo behind his truck for a few miles and his state courts would find him either not guilty or would give him a slap on the wrist, because everyone in the jury and the judge, hell maybe even the defense attorney, thought he did the right thing....

By making it a federal crime, that takes the state level prejudices out of the equation.

I'm not positive about the above, that's just my guess as to why it was done that way. And you're possibly right, there may be a situation where that sort of becomes a double jeopordy... I'm not sure if there are controls around that or not (of course, I'm also positive that everyone claiming all crimes are hate crimes etc have no idea at all either)...



18 U.S. Code § 249. Hate crime acts
DrafterX Offline
#93 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 87,941
I'm still shocked... Mellow
dstieger Offline
#94 Posted:
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 9,870
Abrignac wrote:
18 U.S. Code § 249. Hate crime acts

Thanks. Read through it twice....I think I understand less now than before I read it.

I'm no lawyer and not all that bright...but I do try to go back and read actual governance when it applies to a conversation...this is one of the worst ones I've tried to understand in a long time
tailgater Offline
#95 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 23,096
victor809 wrote:
Dunno the faith reference.... ?


An attempt at religious humor that failed.

tailgater Offline
#96 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 23,096
victor809 wrote:
Tail...if you support sentence reduction for circumstances, why wouldn't you support higher penalties for circumstances?

Additionally, your mock scenarios are a little.... Fanciful.
How often does someone randomly attack a person with a bat unprovoked? They simply don't usually (when there are random attacks they become big news... Because of their randomness)... Usually if you've got someone hitting someone with a bat (I believe that is not assault, but battery.... No pun intended) it's because they had an argument with them previously...or some pre-existing beef.... OR it's because that person is of a group they want to target.

That's part of the difference with hate crimes. You and I are very unlikely to be randomly attacked by a group of strangers we never interacted with. (Yes there's mugging but we're leaving out "for profit" attacks because those are reasonably equal opportunity). There was a point in our history when that could not be said for gay men, blacks, Asians, Hispanics....

Think of how much people get their panties wadded up when there are random attacks in a city. The DC sniper... There was the overblown paranoia of the "knockout game" BS... When people can randomly be attacked they get scared beyond the rational reality of how likely it is to happen. One could call it a form of terrorism.



I'm not saying that penalties shouldn't be adjusted based on circumstance.
I'm saying that the "circumstance" shouldn't be why someone hates someone.

Maybe my example of a random stranger beating is too infrequent.
How about beating someone up with a bat because they don't like the fence their neighbor put up?
That's a hate crime. But it's not a hate crime.

At the end of the day it doesn't matter if they hate them because they're black, or if they smell, or if they play loud music, or if they look at you the wrong way.

And worse: if I were to get into fisticuffs with a person of color on my way home tonight, I could be accused of a hate crime when all it may have been is a scuffle over the last parking spot at Kraft's massage parlor.


If a person has a list of who is Jewish in their town and they go about hurting them, then YES that person should be charged with the most severe penalty. But it's not because it's a hate crime. It's because it's literally domestic terrorism.


I like your last paragraph. It's food for thought. But it's flawed.
If we were to use public pandemonium as the barometer think what would happen when someone of the Muslim faith were convicted of a crime.

Speyside Offline
#97 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 7,634
Thanks Anthony. I need to read it a few more times before I am clear on a few points, but it does sneer some of my questions.
DrafterX Offline
#98 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 87,941
Still no arrest... Think
tailgater Offline
#99 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 23,096
victor809 wrote:
None of that takes into account the simple potential for recidivism.

If a dude is hitting a guy with a bat for no reason other than a different sexual orientation or skin color... Then he's a lot more likely to do it again than a guy who hit a dude with a bat because he owes him money (the mythical "hit them with a bat for no reason" exists, but is very very rare, you don't make laws around outliers).

Why wouldn't you want that guy in jail longer?


But who's to say it was for "no reason" other than being gay?

Maybe the gay guy hit on him.
Maybe he's the one who owed him money.

Most bully's don't really need a reason.
Do you think that someone who beats up a gay person simply for being gay would stop beating people up if suddenly there were no gays?
Speyside Offline
#100 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 7,634
Tail, as a generality you are correct. But I think Victor is describing very specific circumstances. A guy lynching a black man while wearing a Klan robe and hood is commuting a hate crime. There is no wiggle room here. A guy dragging a gay man down the road with a bumper sticker that says death to gays, who is also shouting die homo die is committing a hate crime. This is black and white. And so on.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
3 Pages<123>