Quote :

"And to not beat around the bush, you are trying to say that the white people have it equally as hard as the black folks"

Doesn't matter. The law and laws should treat people equally. It's obvious that a black person sprinkling saltines on the lawn of a frat house would not yield a hate crime charge. Moreover, were the black person to sprinkle cotton balls on the lawn of the black student center, he, again, would not be charged with a hate crime. That, in itself, is enough to make the law unConstitutional. it doesn't get any simpler than that. The exact same act can NOT be treated differently under the law based on race and still stand up to judicial scrutiny. This was held in the case that invalidated laws making interracial marriage illegal.

Quote :

"The courts? It’s why we have hate crime laws in the first place…"

Hardly. We have hate crime laws because some people think it's OK to tell people what is legal to think or not think.

Quote :

"Laws have always considered intent"

Absolutely. Intent can only decrease the severity of the charge, not the other way around. That's why a person who kills another via a car accident is not charged with 1st degree murder. The charge is, at worst, reduced. If I go out and shoot a guy, I'm not charged with involuntary manslaughter and then it's increased.

Quote :

"You realize that protected class applies to white people too?"

In most cases, it does not. Nice try, though. In most discrimination law, the majority is NOT protected.

Quote :

"This is not for you to determine. This may be the case, but that’s what the court systems are for."

Nice cop-out. The argument is that the law is wrong. That the court rule based on the law is irrelevant, and you know it.

3/18/2010 12:14:02 AM

Quote :

" Hate crime laws only work on specific classes, in my example white males arent a protected class,"

I see where your problem is… you don’t know what the definition of “protected class” means. Race is a protected class, and if someone is being attacked for their race (or any other protected class), it doesn’t matter what that race is, it can be charged as a hate crime.

Quote :

"secondly, sprinkining crackers, just like dropping cotton balls would not be fighting words or likely to incite violence. "

It depends on the context. How is that hard to understand? This has been a legal principle for hundreds of years.

Quote :

"You cant make different rules that apply to different groups in regards to speech. you cant say one group plays by one rule and another plays by another. "

This is not being done, in any way. Where are there different rules…?

Quote :

"If a person belongs to the Aryan brotherhood, and during the course of a robbery they kill a black person, should their membership in the Aryan Brotherhood be admitted into court? Was that a hate crime? or did i just kill them because it happened?"

Haha, is this a joke? It’s very likely that if someone is in the Aryan Brotherhood, and they kill a black person in the committing of a crime, that race was a motivating factor. They’re screwed to begin with for killing someone during a robbery, but they’re extra screwed for doing it because of race. If his lawyers could prove that he DIDN’T do it because of race, he could get off for the hate-crime charge… that’s how the legal system works. Clever, aint it?

Quote :

"Finally the courts and judges cannot determine if something was a hate crime, thats up to the jury "

And the jury are essentially part of the courts. This is probably the last time i will respond to such a pedantic statement.

Quote :

"Doesn't matter. The law and laws should treat people equally. It's obvious that a black person sprinkling saltines on the lawn of a frat house would not yield a hate crime charge. Moreover, were the black person to sprinkle cotton balls on the lawn of the black student center, he, again, would not be charged with a hate crime. That, in itself, is enough to make the law unConstitutional. it doesn't get any simpler than that. The exact same act can NOT be treated differently under the law based on race and still stand up to judicial scrutiny. This was held in the case that invalidated laws making interracial marriage illegal. "

None of this is necessarily true. Only because you have sand in your vagina do you feel that the world is against you in every way, because of your white-male-ness.

Quote :

"In most cases, it does not. Nice try, though. In most discrimination law, the majority is NOT protected. "

100% untrue. Where on earth did you get this idea from? Is this what they teach in KKK meetings or Tea Party rallies or something? Look up the case of McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transportation Co


[Edited on March 18, 2010 at 1:36 AM. Reason : ]

3/18/2010 1:33:08 AM

unfortunately, white males are not a protected class, and it has been shown repeatedly that 'we' are rarely (though it has happened) been subject to discrimination.



___
race is protected, white males are not.

[Edited on March 18, 2010 at 2:28 AM. Reason : .]

3/18/2010 2:28:30 AM

man I love watching soap box conservatives amplify off of each other and get it more and more wrong

watch that strawman riff

3/18/2010 2:54:24 AM

I hope that isn't referring to me, because I am far from 'conservative'.

3/18/2010 3:21:00 AM

Ill agree with him that race is a class, im just saying that realization of that in the situations given above especially in the white example is doubtful. Im well aware of hate crime law that the SC has upheld for black on white violence

Quote :

"If his lawyers could prove that he DIDN’T do it because of race, he could get off for the hate-crime charge… that’s how the legal system works. Clever, aint it?"

Thats funny, i thought the prosecution had to prove he did do it, and the hate behind it, you cant prove a negative, its not on the defense.

[Edited on March 18, 2010 at 7:32 AM. Reason : as god as my witness, i thought turkeys could fly]

[Edited on March 18, 2010 at 7:45 AM. Reason : as god as my witness, i thought turkeys could fly]

3/18/2010 7:31:42 AM

Quote :

"They’re screwed to begin with for killing someone during a robbery, but they’re extra screwed for doing it because of race. If his lawyers could prove that he DIDN’T do it because of race, he could get off for the hate-crime charge… that’s how the legal system works. Clever, aint it?"

Funny, I'm fairly certain the legal precedent is "innocent until proven guilty" not the other way around. Did I miss something? And since we've gone a while and still had no answer, I guess I'll ask again:

Quote :

"Which of these crimes is a hate crime, where the murder deserves more severe punishment and why? Of the ones that are hate crimes, are any more serious than the others and deserving of even harsher punishment? To set the stage, it's a bank robbery, and the victim was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. The victim did nothing to provoke the robber, it was a shooting in cold blood. The murderer is a white male and his victim is a white male. The murderer is a white male and once bought nazi literature and his victim is a white male The murderer is a white male and secretly a neo-nazi and his victim is a white male. The murderer is a white male and openly a neo-nazi and his victim is a white male. The murderer is a white male and openly a neo-nazi wearing neo-nazi paraphernalia and the victim is a white male. The murderer is a white male, openly neo-nazi, wearing paraphernalia and wrote a suicide note saying he was going to "purge the world of impurities" and his victim is a white male. The murderer is a white male, neo-nazi, paraphernalia, suicide note and the victim is a Jewish male The murderer is a white male, neo-nazi, paraphernalia, suicide note and the victim is a Muslim male The murderer is a white male, neo-nazi, paraphernalia, suicide note and the victim is a white woman. Same murderer, the victim is a Chinese man. Same murderer, the victim is a Chinese woman. Same murderer, the victim is a Native-American man. Same murderer, the victim is a Native-American woman Same murderer, the victim is a Mexican man. Same murderer, the victim is a Mexican woman. Same murderer, the victim is a gay man. Same murderer, the victim is a lesbian. Same murderer, the victim is a mulatto man. Same murderer, the victim is a mulatto woman. Same murderer, the victim is an African-American man. Same murderer, the victim is an African-American woman. Same murderer, the victim is a gay, African-American, Muslim man who rescues orphans and puppies. How do you answers change if the murderer is Chinese, Muslim, Mexican, African-American, gay or a woman? "

3/18/2010 7:45:18 AM

Quote :

""If his lawyers could prove that he DIDN’T do it because of race, he could get off for the hate-crime charge… that’s how the legal system works. Clever, aint it?""

And that's what is so fucking scary about moron's stance (and everyone else who supports this bullshit legislation).

White person commits *any* crime against a black person and now they have to prove it wasn't a hate crime. If you call that freedom, moron, you're a god damned idiot.

What is so wrong about all races being treated equally under the law?

3/18/2010 7:54:48 AM

Quote :

"I hope that isn't referring to me, because I am far from 'conservative'."

You overestimate people. It cannot be expected of a modern progressive to understand the irony in calling someone a fascist because they don't agree with thought crime legislation.

I say that, of course, as someone who would probably consider himself a progressive if the label didn't carry all the self-loathing baggage that has come to characterize it.

[Edited on March 18, 2010 at 10:40 AM. Reason : ]

3/18/2010 10:38:32 AM

Quote :

"I see where your problem is… you don’t know what the definition of “protected class” means. Race is a protected class, and if someone is being attacked for their race (or any other protected class), it doesn’t matter what that race is, it can be charged as a hate crime. "

I'm not sure what Moron is trying to say here... he points out that he doesn't believe the definition of protected class is known. He then alludes that protected class refers to "race" but doesn't out right say that. If he could offer up a specific definition for protected class maybe we could break that down. For now we'll go with race.

Quote :

" Race n. A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics. A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German race. A genealogical line; a lineage. Humans considered as a group. Biology. An interbreeding, usually geographically isolated population of organisms differing from other populations of the same species in the frequency of hereditary traits. A race that has been given formal taxonomic recognition is known as a subspecies. A breed or strain, as of domestic animals. A distinguishing or characteristic quality, such as the flavor of a wine. [French, from Old French, from Old Italian razza, race, lineage.] USAGE NOTE The notion of race is nearly as problematic from a scientific point of view as it is from a social one. European physical anthropologists of the 17th and 18th centuries proposed various systems of racial classifications based on such observable characteristics as skin color, hair type, body proportions, and skull measurements, essentially codifying the perceived differences among broad geographic populations of humans. The traditional terms for these populations-Caucasoid (or Caucasian), Mongoloid, Negroid, and in some systems Australoid-are now controversial in both technical and nontechnical usage, and in some cases they may well be considered offensive. (Caucasian does retain a certain currency in American English, but it is used almost exclusively to mean "white" or "European" rather than "belonging to the Caucasian race," a group that includes a variety of peoples generally categorized as nonwhite.) The biological aspect of race is described today not in observable physical features but rather in such genetic characteristics as blood groups and metabolic processes, and the groupings indicated by these factors seldom coincide very neatly with those put forward by earlier physical anthropologists. Citing this and other points-such as the fact that a person who is considered black in one society might be nonblack in another-many cultural anthropologists now consider race to be more a social or mental construct than an objective biological fact. "

Which definition of race would you like to use?
physical characteristics? skin color?
---should all persons of black skin color be offended by cotton balls?
common history? nationality? geographical?
---i am assuming this is this one we will be using?
lineage? biology?
---i think we can agree to throw this option out.

So according to Moron if someone is being attacked based on their common history this can be charged as a hate crime. Even in the instance of a "speech" based attack?

So everytime you make fun on a redneck or backwoods hick? This can be charged as a hate crime? Looks like a simple search on TWW is going to yield a lot of hate crime charges.

3/18/2010 1:25:14 PM

In before moron calls you a racist.

3/18/2010 1:38:15 PM

Quote :

"If his lawyers could prove that he DIDN’T do it because of race, he could get off for the hate-crime charge"

I thought it was innocent until proven guilty........

Should it not be the prosecutors burden to attempt to slant the crime to fit their hate crime allegation??

Surely the african american was only killed due to race, not because he tried to stop the robber or would not cooperate.

3/18/2010 2:02:25 PM

Norrin Radd has a point. I've asked for this before, but how about a coherent definition of race? Is it just skin color? Should someone that was born and raised in Africa be offended by the cotton balls? If you're going to call race a "protected class," let's figure out what race is first.

[Edited on March 18, 2010 at 3:03 PM. Reason : ]

3/18/2010 2:59:44 PM

We're all Africans if you go back far enough.

3/18/2010 10:42:06 PM

Quote :

"None of this is necessarily true. Only because you have sand in your vagina do you feel that the world is against you in every way, because of your white-male-ness."

hahaha. I argue that people should be treated EQUALLY, and you resort to ad hominem. Good work man.

Quote :

"100% untrue. Where on earth did you get this idea from?"

If I/O Psychology at NCSU counts as a KKK meeting, then sure. It's not like we had a whole chapter on discrimination laws or anything.

3/18/2010 11:15:58 PM

Norrin Radd

Quote :

"He then alludes that protected class refers to "race" but doesn't out right say that. If he could offer up a specific definition for protected class maybe we could break that down. Fo"

Wow. You realize the term "protected class" is a specific legal term...?

Quote :

"Subsequent legislation expanded the role of the EEOC. Today, according to the U. S. Government Manual of 1998-99, the EEOC enforces laws that prohibit discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, or age in hiring, promoting, firing, setting wages, testing, training, apprenticeship, and all other terms and conditions of employment. Race, color, sex, creed, and age are now protected classes. The proposal to add each group to protected-class status unleashed furious debate. But no words stimulate the passion of the debate more than "affirmative action." "

http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/civil-rights-act/

Quote :

"So everytime you make fun on a redneck or backwoods hick? This can be charged as a hate crime? Looks like a simple search on TWW is going to yield a lot of hate crime charges."

i've said multiple times before "redneck" can be a racist term. And I don't know about "hate crimes" but there is plenty of racism of all strips on TWW and the Internet in general. You are just now figuring this out...?

Quote :

"hahaha. I argue that people should be treated EQUALLY, and you resort to ad hominem. Good work man. "

Actually, the ad hom was just the book-end to the point that your information was factually incorrect.

Quote :

"If I/O Psychology at NCSU counts as a KKK meeting, then sure. It's not like we had a whole chapter on discrimination laws or anything. "

You apparently didn't recall the information correctly then.

[Edited on March 19, 2010 at 12:27 AM. Reason : ]

3/19/2010 12:27:28 AM

Quote :

""Which of these crimes is a hate crime, where the murder deserves more severe punishment and why? Of the ones that are hate crimes, are any more serious than the others and deserving of even harsher punishment? To set the stage, it's a bank robbery, and the victim was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. The victim did nothing to provoke the robber, it was a shooting in cold blood. The murderer is a white male and his victim is a white male. The murderer is a white male and once bought nazi literature and his victim is a white male The murderer is a white male and secretly a neo-nazi and his victim is a white male. The murderer is a white male and openly a neo-nazi and his victim is a white male. The murderer is a white male and openly a neo-nazi wearing neo-nazi paraphernalia and the victim is a white male. The murderer is a white male, openly neo-nazi, wearing paraphernalia and wrote a suicide note saying he was going to "purge the world of impurities" and his victim is a white male. The murderer is a white male, neo-nazi, paraphernalia, suicide note and the victim is a Jewish male The murderer is a white male, neo-nazi, paraphernalia, suicide note and the victim is a Muslim male The murderer is a white male, neo-nazi, paraphernalia, suicide note and the victim is a white woman. Same murderer, the victim is a Chinese man. Same murderer, the victim is a Chinese woman. Same murderer, the victim is a Native-American man. Same murderer, the victim is a Native-American woman Same murderer, the victim is a Mexican man. Same murderer, the victim is a Mexican woman. Same murderer, the victim is a gay man. Same murderer, the victim is a lesbian. Same murderer, the victim is a mulatto man. Same murderer, the victim is a mulatto woman. Same murderer, the victim is an African-American man. Same murderer, the victim is an African-American woman. Same murderer, the victim is a gay, African-American, Muslim man who rescues orphans and puppies. How do you answers change if the murderer is Chinese, Muslim, Mexican, African-American, gay or a woman? "

The mere skin color of the assailant/victim is entirely irrelevant to whether something is a hate crime. It entirely depends on the intent, as determined by a court. Seriously, how is this hard to understand?

Here is what the statute actually reads:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/245.html

Quote :

"(b) Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, by force or threat of force willfully injures, intimidates or interferes with, or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with— [...] (2) any person because of his race, color, religion or national origin and because he is or has been— (A) enrolling in or attending any public school or public college; (B) participating in or enjoying any benefit, service, privilege, program, facility or activity provided or administered by any State or subdivision thereof; (C) applying for or enjoying employment, or any perquisite thereof, by any private employer or any agency of any State or subdivision thereof, or joining or using the services or advantages of any labor organization, hiring hall, or employment agency; (D) serving, or attending upon any court of any State in connection with possible service, as a grand or petit juror; (E) traveling in or using any facility of interstate commerce, or using any vehicle, terminal, or facility of any common carrier by motor, rail, water, or air; (F) enjoying the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, or of any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility which serves the public and which is principally engaged in selling food or beverages for consumption on the premises, or of any gasoline station, or of any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium, or any other place of exhibition or entertainment which serves the public, or of any other establishment which serves the public and (i) which is located within the premises of any of the aforesaid establishments or within the premises of which is physically located any of the aforesaid establishments, and (ii) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such establishments; or "

[Edited on March 19, 2010 at 12:36 AM. Reason : ]

[Edited on March 19, 2010 at 12:37 AM. Reason : ]

3/19/2010 12:36:21 AM

So where was the force or threat of force here?

3/19/2010 7:35:28 AM

it’s arguable that the symbolism in the choice of cotton was meant to create a hostile atmosphere, which implies a threat of force.

3/19/2010 8:17:47 AM

Yeah, I'm comfortable with letting people being prosecuted more harshly based on fucking symbolism.

I like how you can argue the symbolism of the cotton balls but then say that this has nothing to do with freedom of expression. You're a bastard.

3/19/2010 8:43:17 AM

While i support the university's right to suspend these students for unprofessional conduct, violation of the student code, creating
unaccepting atmosphere, and promoting racial tensions; I do not agree with this situation being elevated to the degree of criminal
charges on the notion that it is a hate crime. Complete bullshit.

3/19/2010 9:12:22 AM

Quote :

"Wow. You realize the term "protected class" is a specific legal term...?"

Quote :

"Subsequent legislation expanded the role of the EEOC. Today, according to the U. S. Government Manual of 1998-99, the EEOC enforces laws that prohibit discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, or age in hiring, promoting, firing, setting wages, testing, training, apprenticeship, and all other terms and conditions of employment. Race, color, sex, creed, and age are now protected classes. The proposal to add each group to protected-class status unleashed furious debate. But no words stimulate the passion of the debate more than "affirmative action.""

Giving examples of some protected classes != defining the term protected class.
Further more you still have not established what "race" is.

Going deeper into how asinine this is... is it now a felony when a car insurance company charges you higher rates for being a younger driver? is this a hate crime?

hell how about the fact that you can't buy alcohol until you are 21? this is discriminating against a protected class. Can those under 21 charge the government with a hate crime?

-------------

I don't want to go wandering down a pig trail so let's get back to the original statement

Quote :

"I see where your problem is… you don’t know what the definition of “protected class” means. Race is a protected class, and if someone is being attacked for their race (or any other protected class), it doesn’t matter what that race is, it can be charged as a hate crime. "

Since Moron still hasn't made any clear statement or definitions of the terms he is using - I also want to refer back to the part where he says (and i will paraphrase) "if someone is being attacked for their protected class, then it can be charged as a hate crime.

So then we also need to establish what constitutes an "attack"
According to Moron
Attack --> Threat of Force --> Hostile Atmosphere --> Symbolism

Quote :

"I see where your problem is…"

Moron would you care to offer some insight? It's seems you are the one holding all the cards, as you are the only one that understands the definetion of terms like "race" / "protected class" / "attack" - - - but you wont share that information with us, only some examples of those terms.

3/19/2010 11:47:05 AM

Quote :

"it’s arguable that the symbolism in the choice of cotton was meant to create a hostile atmosphere, which implies a threat of force."

Are neo-nazi marches implicit threats of force?

3/19/2010 12:53:20 PM

I am certain that the ideology of moron would suggest that neo-nazi marches should be illegal. Or maybe, if they do anything illegal like block traffic, or throw a cigarette butt on the ground, then that instance of a minor infraction of the law should be issued as a hate crime.

3/19/2010 1:14:14 PM

Are you trolling or are you really that out of touch?

3/19/2010 1:16:17 PM

Neo-nazi marches probably do "create a hostile environment," therefore it should be a hate crime, according to those that appear to support hate crime legislation ITT.

3/19/2010 1:27:56 PM

A skinhead throwing a cigarette butt on the ground and stomping on it could be interpreted as symbolic of the curbstomping in "American History X".

3/19/2010 1:40:36 PM

Quote :

"You apparently didn't recall the information correctly then."

I sure got an A on the tests I'm lookin at right now. Admit that you talked out your ass and we cn move on, idiot.

Quote :

"Actually, the ad hom was just the book-end to the point that your information was factually incorrect."

It's factually incorrect that people should be treated equally? wow. just fucking wow.

3/19/2010 3:02:15 PM

There is zero threat of force here,

plus you guys need to look at the state laws.

3/19/2010 4:18:57 PM

didn't you know? Black people cower in fear every time they walk down the make-up aisle at wal-mart. OH MY GOD, A Q-TIP!

3/19/2010 5:44:33 PM

You idiots done yet or is this thread still a communal masturbatorium?

3/19/2010 6:08:00 PM

sup, McDouche

3/19/2010 6:09:30 PM

So brain-dead and stupid that he thinks parroting hooksaw is the same as being clever. lol

3/19/2010 6:12:56 PM

sup, McDouche

3/19/2010 6:13:52 PM

Quote :

"I sure got an A on the tests I'm lookin at right now. Admit that you talked out your ass and we cn move on, idiot. "

reality is still against you on this one. That makes you the idiot.

Quote :

"Giving examples of some protected classes != defining the term protected class. Further more you still have not established what "race" is. Going deeper into how asinine this is... is it now a felony when a car insurance company charges you higher rates for being a younger driver? is this a hate crime? hell how about the fact that you can't buy alcohol until you are 21? this is discriminating against a protected class. Can those under 21 charge the government with a hate crime? ------------- I don't want to go wandering down a pig trail so let's get back to the original statement Quote : "I see where your problem is… you don’t know what the definition of “protected class” means. Race is a protected class, and if someone is being attacked for their race (or any other protected class), it doesn’t matter what that race is, it can be charged as a hate crime. " Since Moron still hasn't made any clear statement or definitions of the terms he is using - I also want to refer back to the part where he says (and i will paraphrase) "if someone is being attacked for their protected class, then it can be charged as a hate crime. "

Umm… i’m using the definition used by all these laws:
http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/index.cfm

That are the subject of this thread… i’m not making them up, there’s nothing to discuss what I mean, because what I mean is what everyone else means.

YOU are the one confused about what a protected class is, or how these laws work. Read through some of those links, educate yourself, then get back to this thread.

[Edited on March 19, 2010 at 9:20 PM. Reason : ]

3/19/2010 9:16:32 PM

Quote :

"reality is still against you on this one. That makes you the idiot."

you have not offered evidence to the contrary. Are you telling me that my textbook was wrong?

3/19/2010 9:40:36 PM

Because reality does that for me...

Quote :

""Doesn't matter. The law and laws should treat people equally. It's obvious that a black person sprinkling saltines on the lawn of a frat house would not yield a hate crime charge. Moreover, were the black person to sprinkle cotton balls on the lawn of the black student center, he, again, would not be charged with a hate crime. That, in itself, is enough to make the law unConstitutional. it doesn't get any simpler than that. The exact same act can NOT be treated differently under the law based on race and still stand up to judicial scrutiny. This was held in the case that invalidated laws making interracial marriage illegal. "

What about this is true? At all?

You don't know that if black people were sprinkling crackers around white people what the reaction would be. If they could prove that a black person had racist intention in sprinkling cotton balls, he definitely could be charged with a hate crime.

And you again are ignoring how the Civil Rights law is written. I'll re-post it for you, since you didn't read it:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/245.html

Section 2 there.

Everything you said is 100% wrong based on how the laws are written, and how they have been executed over the past several decades.

It wouldn't be a case of people being treated different based on skin color. This is just a factually incorrect way of describing what hate crime laws are. It's entirely based on intent, and it has always been based on intent. Intent is hard to prove, which is why you don't see hate crime laws being just thrown around willy-nilly. In your delusional world, every case where a white person commits a crime against a black would be treated as a hate crime, but this is not the case. Hate crimes are the exception, not the rule.

You can sleep easy knowing that white people aren't being systematically oppressed. Take a breath and realize that whichever racist idiot put this thought in your head was wrong.

3/19/2010 10:27:43 PM

Quote :

"t wouldn't be a case of people being treated different based on skin color."

Quote :

"If they could prove that a black person had racist intention in sprinkling cotton balls, he definitely could be charged with a hate crime. --moron "

Quote :

"If his lawyers could prove that he DIDN’T do it because of race, he could get off for the hate-crime charge… that’s how the legal system works. Clever, aint it? --moron "

And you wonder why we say there's a double standard.

[Edited on March 19, 2010 at 10:51 PM. Reason : adsf]

3/19/2010 10:50:41 PM

huh?

3/19/2010 10:51:28 PM

What is so confusing? Earlier you said that a white man must prove that they did not commit a hate crime to beat the charge. Now you say that the state must prove that a black man did commit a hate crime before they charge him. That would be what we call a double standard.

3/19/2010 11:34:37 PM

Quote :

"You don't know that if black people were sprinkling crackers around white people what the reaction would be. "

I know precisely what the reaction would be. A littering charge. Otherwise, we would have the Jenna 6 fiasco all over again.

3/20/2010 6:09:41 PM

^ okay nostradamus

^^ haha are you trolling? You think i want to re-write how the court system works, single-handedly? Clearly the meaning there was that his lawyers would try to convince the jury that his intent wasn’t to intimidate based on race.

[Edited on March 20, 2010 at 9:29 PM. Reason : ]

3/20/2010 9:28:33 PM

Quote :

"Umm… i’m using the definition used by all these laws: http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/index.cfm That are the subject of this thread… i’m not making them up, there’s nothing to discuss what I mean, because what I mean is what everyone else means. YOU are the one confused about what a protected class is, or how these laws work. Read through some of those links, educate yourself, then get back to this thread. "

Was this some kind of a joke? Did you read your link / sublinks?
None of the terms i listed were defined in those statutes.
And that entire site is devoted to employment descrimination, which is not what we are talking about here.

If there is nothing to discuess or I have accidently over looked the definetions would you mind quoting them directly for us?

3/21/2010 2:43:26 AM

Why even debate exactly the wording of Class, let him use any definition he wants, its still not a hate crime, and its protected speech.

3/22/2010 9:17:21 AM