Yes, Virginia, homophobic hate crimes do exist

  • Thread starter Thread starter gracepoole
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Except “hate crimes” mean that we are not equal, that some people are worth more than others.It certainly wasn’t to make some people more valuable than others.Ok, should someone who kills a gay man because he is gay get a tougher sentence than a man who plans and executes a rape/murder of a heterosexual female? Is a gay man’s life worth more than a heterosexual woman’s life? Under the “hate crime” mentality, it clearly is.

Peace

Tim
I don’t believe that one person is more valuable than another. I believe that we must look into the mind of the killer and charge him/her according to what their mentality was at the time of the killing. If a guys plans to rape/murder a random woman, he is most likely a serial killer and has probably killed others, or will. Thus, he should be treated as such and have the book thrown at him. If a man plans to kill a random person just for being gay, likewise, he will probably not stop there, and should be charged as such.
 
I don’t believe that one person is more valuable than another.
Then don’t treat them that way.
I believe that we must look into the mind of the killer and charge him/her according to what their mentality was at the time of the killing. If a guys plans to rape/murder a random woman, he is most likely a serial killer and has probably killed others, or will. Thus, he should be treated as such and have the book thrown at him. If a man plans to kill a random person just for being gay, likewise, he will probably not stop there, and should be charged as such.
But there are no laws that would add additional time to the sentence of the rapist/murder like there are for the man who murdered a gay man. Why is that? Because homosexuals are a protected group and heterosexual women are not a protected group. Clearly, the law makes the gay man’s life more valuable than that of the heterosexual woman.

You can’t punish someone for thoughts. You can’t lock up the rapist/murderer for extra amounts of time because he is most likely a serial killer and has probably killed others or will kill other. You only get to deal with the crime he has committed.

Peace

Tim
 
I don’t believe that one person is more valuable than another**. I believe that we must look into the mind of the killer and charge him/her according to what their mentality was at the time of the killing.** If a guys plans to rape/murder a random woman, he is most likely a serial killer and has probably killed others, or will. Thus, he should be treated as such and have the book thrown at him. If a man plans to kill a random person just for being gay, likewise, he will probably not stop there, and should be charged as such.
Bolding mine.

Hmmmmmm… that is what court ordered Psych. Evals. are for, yes? The Judge sentences accordingly - in theory at any rate.

Methinks it unwise to socially engineer the entire society based on the pathology of a* few* of it’s members.

No. We need to mold society on the ‘Model of the Ideal,’ not the Pathos.
 
Yes, let the gay agenda continue to push its way onto all of society. We could point out the bishop who recently told the story of how his secretary was killed by a “gay” man because she spoke against his immoral behavior.
A resident CAF agnostic pro-gay member insinuated in his postings that Mary Stachowicz had it coming by her gay assailant who stabbed and strangled her to death.
,
 
Or maybe it’s a hate crime if a radical Occupy Wall Street protester assaults a rich guy because he hates rich guys as a class.
hahahahahaha occupiers couldn’t hurt a fly.
 
I don’t believe that one person is more valuable than another. I believe that we must look into the mind of the killer and charge him/her according to what their mentality was at the time of the killing. If a guys plans to rape/murder a random woman, he is most likely a serial killer and has probably killed others, or will. Thus, he should be treated as such and have the book thrown at him. If a man plans to kill a random person just for being gay, likewise, he will probably not stop there, and should be charged as such.
We already account for their “mentality” by charging them with first-degree murder (if premeditated) or second-degree murder/manslaughter (if not). Note, we’ve been doing this for centuries, well before the “hate crimes” category was invented. So again, what is the rationale for “hate crimes”?
 
Then don’t treat them that way.But there are no laws that would add additional time to the sentence of the rapist/murder like there are for the man who murdered a gay man. Why is that? Because homosexuals are a protected group and heterosexual women are not a protected group. Clearly, the law makes the gay man’s life more valuable than that of the heterosexual woman.

You can’t punish someone for thoughts. You can’t lock up the rapist/murderer for extra amounts of time because he is most likely a serial killer and has probably killed others or will kill other. You only get to deal with the crime he has committed.

Peace

Tim
Actually yes you can. Malice has a lot to do with the sentencing in a murder trial. And I’m not saying the hate crime laws are fair or perfect, but there IS a difference between the mindset of a white supremacist or a gay-basher who tie a man to the back of their truck and drag him to death and a mugger who gets nervous and shoots someone. Both people may not have gone out intending to kill anyone, so you don’t have pre-meditation. However, the person belonging to a hate group could be said to be on the constant lookout to abuse the people he hates and the time he spends in prison should absolutely reflect that.
 
We already account for their “mentality” by charging them with first-degree murder (if premeditated) or second-degree murder/manslaughter (if not). Note, we’ve been doing this for centuries, well before the “hate crimes” category was invented. So again, what is the rationale for “hate crimes”?
See above. These people don’t necessarily “pre-meditate” their crimes. But when they happen to see a black man on “their” side of town, they chain him to the car and drag him to death. Neither manslaughter nor first-degree murder fit the description here. But what those men did is FAR more dangerous and malicious than simple manslaughter and the charges need to reflect that somehow.
 
Actually yes you can. Malice has a lot to do with the sentencing in a murder trial. And I’m not saying the hate crime laws are fair or perfect, but there IS a difference between the mindset of a white supremacist or a gay-basher who tie a man to the back of their truck and drag him to death and a mugger who gets nervous and shoots someone. Both people may not have gone out intending to kill anyone, so you don’t have pre-meditation. However, the person belonging to a hate group could be said to be on the constant lookout to abuse the people he hates and the time he spends in prison should absolutely reflect that.
Sounds like ideology more than rationality.
 
Actually yes you can. Malice has a lot to do with the sentencing in a murder trial. And I’m not saying the hate crime laws are fair or perfect, but there IS a difference between the mindset of a white supremacist or a gay-basher who tie a man to the back of their truck and drag him to death and a mugger who gets nervous and shoots someone. Both people may not have gone out intending to kill anyone, so you don’t have pre-meditation. However, the person belonging to a hate group could be said to be on the constant lookout to abuse the people he hates and the time he spends in prison should absolutely reflect that.
How about the rapist/murderer? Even though he doesn’t have a bias against heterosexual women, he clearly targeted them. However, hate crime laws don’t see her life as being as important than that of the gay man.

And I disagree with your characterization above. Why is it not as bad if my son is killed by a mugger than it is for a gay man to be killed because he is gay? Why is my son’s life not worth as much as a gay man’s life?

The problem with “hate crime” laws is that they put different values on people, ie, we are NOT equal in the eyes of the law.

Peace

Tim
 
But what those men did is FAR more dangerous and malicious than simple manslaughter and the charges need to reflect that somehow.
Is it FAR more dangerous and malicious compared to the example I used of the rapist/murderer?

Peace

Tim
 
Yes, let the gay agenda continue to push its way onto all of society. We could point out the bishop who recently told the story of how his secretary was killed by a “gay” man because she spoke against his immoral behavior.
I think the OP is just saying that some posters here act like every time an attack on a homosexual is brought up, they treat it as “propaganda for the gay agenda” which simply isn’t true. That would be like saying every time someone mentions a catholic being attack it’s really just “propaganda for the catholic agenda” Whether we disagree with a person or no, we have to acknowledge that horrible crimes do happen. And there isn’t a excuse for it.
 
What were you expecting. court transcripts? I was nearby in the Midland case, but still knew none of the principals. I had heard about the victim, he was notorious in the area but still did not deserve being shot.

The shooter of Milk’s identity is at least near common knowledge. Needless to say an Irish Catholic policeman would have never dreamed of working for a Jewish camera store in the notorious “gay district”.

The hand slapping is just on record for anyone to see. Huge riots broke out in SF when the verdict came out.

The man who shot Milk shot another, himself.

That better?
Mr. Dan White (the man who shot Harvey Milk) had indeed worked with him - as a City Supervisor. Mr. Milk also wasn’t the sole target, nor did it have anything to do with Mr. Milk’s sexual orientation. The two of them had worked closely together on several initiatives, but had grown apart following Mr. White’s opposition to a juvenile group home that would be operated by the Sisters of the Good Shepherd opening in his district. Mr. Milk strongly supported the opening of the home. Mr. White, faced with financial difficulties based on the low salary of City Supervisors and conflict with several other supervisors regarding what he saw as “corruption” within city politics, resigned his position as Supervisor on Nov. 10, 1978. His district, realizing that the mayor - whom they opposed - would appoint Mr. White’s replacement, raised funds to help Mr. White with his financial problems provided that he resumed his position as Supervisor. On Nov. 14, he withdrew his resignation. At this time, having initially agreed to reappoint Mr White, Mayor Moscone was successfully lobbied by Mr. Milk, Ms. Carol Silver (another City Supervisor), and Mr. Willie Brown (at that time a California assemblyman, later Mayor of San Francisco) to appoint Mr. Don Horanzy, a liberal Federal Housing official to Mr. White’s conservative district. With the chaos following the Jonestown incident, Mr. Horanzy’s appointment was delayed and scheduled to be formally announced on Nov. 27.

That was the date that Mr. White entered through a window of city hall - which several others working in that same building testified they did on a regular basis as well, using the windows as shortcuts to their offices - and proceeded first to Mayor Moscone’s office. When Mayor Moscone refused to reinstate Mr White as a supervisor, Mr. White shot him several times. Mr White then went back to his own office, meeting Mr. Milk on the way. At Mr. White’s request, Mr. Milk joined him in the office. Once the door was shut, Mr. White shot Mr. Milk and fled the scene.

This was a horrible crime, perpetrated by a disturbed man who saw political forces aligning against him in what he thought was a conspiracy. But to claim that Mr. Milk’s sexual orientation had anything to do with it is mistaken at best, and a deliberate untruth at worst.
 
Some folks just find it absolutely impossible to say “No, a person’s same-sex orientation is NOT justification to murder them or otherwise assault them.” That’s all this thread is about. There’s already been a thread on the bishop’s statement.
Of course, someone’s sexual orientatin is not justification to murder them. But neither is someone’s religious position which the other statement was about.

Regardless of how unjustified a violent act may be, it is simple sensatinalism to call some violence “hate” crimes while other similar violent acts, similarly unjustified are not.

And there is nothing in the OP’s link that indicates that the perpetrators of this crime actually suffer from a very rare (to the point of being practically nonexistant) psychological disoder, a phobia.
 
See above. These people don’t necessarily “pre-meditate” their crimes. But when they happen to see a black man on “their” side of town, they chain him to the car and drag him to death. Neither manslaughter nor first-degree murder fit the description here. But what those men did is FAR more dangerous and malicious than simple manslaughter and the charges need to reflect that somehow.
Again, we don’t have the distinction between categories because of the nature of the crime or the character of the victim, we have them because of the distinct degree of culpability of the murderer: specifically, to what extent can he be really and truly held accountable for what he has done?

So, again, what does “hate” to have to do with it?
 
I think the OP is just saying that some posters here act like every time an attack on a homosexual is brought up, they treat it as “propaganda for the gay agenda” which simply isn’t true. That would be like saying every time someone mentions a catholic being attack it’s really just “propaganda for the catholic agenda” Whether we disagree with a person or no, we have to acknowledge that horrible crimes do happen. And there isn’t a excuse for it.
And yet the article used apparently to prove this claim was exactly what people object to: a murder of a gay man that had nothing to do with him being gay. THIS is what people object to, is every time there’s a murder, be it a robbery, mugging, neighbor angry at the loud stereo, drug deal, random bad luck, or what have you, if that person happens to be gay, it’s labeled a hate crime and used to push an agenda.

If someone is murdered because they’re gay, that’s wrong.

Then again, if someone is murdered because they have money the mugger wants, that’s also wrong.

If someone is murdered because she states her opinion about homosexuality, that’s wrong, too.

Yet we have a world where some of these victims are more equal than others. That’s also wrong. All three were God’s children, and all three murders were wrong.
 
Some are fictitious, some are real (though probably most are real - I personally can only cite one or two events involving made-up anti-gay hate crimes). Either way it doesn’t really make the concept of enforcing hate crimes any more sensible. It kind of applies that some people deserve a higher status when it comes to enforcing laws. All violent and abusive crimes are hateful regardless of whether the victim happens to be a minority or not.
 
Some are fictitious, some are real (though probably most are real - I personally can only cite one or two events involving made-up anti-gay hate crimes). Either way it doesn’t really make the concept of enforcing hate crimes any more sensible. It kind of applies that some people deserve a higher status when it comes to enforcing laws. All violent and abusive crimes are hateful regardless of whether the victim happens to be a minority or not.
I think this is one of the few times where I have found myself in agreement with you. Apparently, hate crimes make strange bedfellows. 😃
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top