Lesbian couple and their children attacked by 15 men.

Prince Of Dorkness

Someone recently brought up and questioned the need for "hate crimes" laws. I wanted to find a good example of a crime motivated by nothing but blind hatred. I didn't have to look very far.

Things to note:

1. This happened in a Church Parking Lot.
2. 15 men threatened to kill two parents and their children... in front of the terrified children.
3. They shot fireworks at them, pulled a knife and a GUN on them.
4. they were called (in front of the children) "pussy licking whores" and dykes.
5. one of the women suffered contusions and fractures.
6. other injured people include the two children and an 80 year-old grandmother.

Now... I'm not saying that gay people should have "special rights." If a family of Christians is attacked in the same manner just for being Christians... that is also a "hate crime."

And you cannot deny that this was motivated by nothing but hate. This family did not provoke the attack, it was not by anyone they knew. This wasn't a random crime, it was targeted directly at them because they were lesbians.

The Kentucky Equality Federation has asked the U.S. Justice Department to look into a report of an attack on a lesbian couple, Misty Turner and Brandy Standifer, and their children which took place on July 4 in Pathfork, a town in southeast Kentucky, at a fireworks display in a church parking lot.

The Lexington Herald-Leader reports that a group of people shot fireworks at the couple and their children, taunted them with anti-gay slurs, and threatened to kill them.


Read more: http://www.towleroad.com/2011/08/kentuc ... z1WALJknyA

unsung

It sounds like the crime that was committed was assault.

There should not be special crimes for select groups of people.

Prince Of Dorkness

unsung wrote:

It sounds like the crime that was committed was assault.

There should not be special crimes for select groups of people.

Why not?

If I bomb a Mormon church because it's a Mormon church... shouldn't that weigh more than if I bomb a tool shed in the back yard of someone I know and dislike?

pandora

"Hate crime laws in the United States protect against hate crimes (also known as bias crimes) motivated by enmity or animus against a protected class. Although state laws vary, current statutes permit federal prosecution of hate crimes committed on the basis of a person's protected characteristics of race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability."

"law enforcement agencies that participate in the national hate crime program collect details about an offender’s bias motivation associated with the following offense types: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, aggravated assault, simple assault, intimidation, robbery, burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, arson, and destruction/damage/vandalism of property."

pandora

if I was raped I would want the penalty to be as great as it was for one of the groups protected

and maybe it is ... I don't know... to me rape is hate

I think that might be the same for any crime against me ... any crime is horrible
but might not be identified a hate crime cause the crime committed against me
didn't fit the definition cause I'm not in the group :?

horrible acts done to anyone is horrible we would all be the same victim
in the end... we would all feel the same

but I guess the crime would never have been committed if there was no hate
this why the laws exist.

chadwick

what a terrible event. people disgust me with their hatred towards gays, color of skin, and different religious beliefs. committing hate crimes means you are an idiot and should be locked up for a long period of time, and or shot out back behind the barn and buried.

klusterfuk

chadwick wrote:

what a terrible event. people disgust me with their hatred towards gays, color of skin, and different religious beliefs. committing hate crimes means you are an idiot and should be locked up for a long period of time, and or shot out back behind the barn and buried.[/quote

the second one for sure

Prince Of Dorkness

My feeling is like Chadwick... I think...

if you demonstrate that you are the person who would commit a crime like that for no apparent reason other than wanting to target a minority... I kinda want you out of society for a bit longer.

BinauralJam

This Boils my Blood.

BinauralJam

This Boils my Blood.

unsung

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

Why not?

If I bomb a Mormon church because it's a Mormon church... shouldn't that weigh more than if I bomb a tool shed in the back yard of someone I know and dislike?

It's still arson, regardless of what was burned. I don't think crimes should be defined on motivation. A crime is a crime. Crimes can be defined on intent, as I wanted to burn that to the ground, or someone intended on killing someone.

I also don't believe a crime is committed if there is no victim, but that's another issue.

bgivens33

unsung wrote:

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

Why not?

If I bomb a Mormon church because it's a Mormon church... shouldn't that weigh more than if I bomb a tool shed in the back yard of someone I know and dislike?

It's still arson, regardless of what was burned. I don't think crimes should be defined on motivation. A crime is a crime. Crimes can be defined on intent, as I wanted to burn that to the ground, or someone intended on killing someone.

I also don't believe a crime is committed if there is no victim, but that's another issue.

Agreed... trying to determine the reason behind the intent is pointless.

Prince Of Dorkness

bgivens33 wrote:

Agreed... trying to determine the reason behind the intent is pointless.

Ok then.

Should burning a cross on a black person's lawn be the same as burning your own garbage in the street?

(don't give me the "trying to determine the reason behind the intent" in this story. The intent was pretty freaking obvious. :roll: )

JOEJOEJOE

In a perfect world, the extra penalties doled-out for hate crimes will help deter people from comitting them.

bgivens33

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

bgivens33 wrote:

Agreed... trying to determine the reason behind the intent is pointless.

Ok then.

Should burning a cross on a black person's lawn be the same as burning your own garbage in the street?

(don't give me the "trying to determine the reason behind the intent" in this story. The intent was pretty freaking obvious. :roll: )

No, because one person started a fire on a street and another in someones yard.

There should be no law mandating a higher sentence for burning a cross on a black persons lawn opposed to burning a circle on a white persons lawn.

A judge(or jury, depending on jurisdiction) can impose harsher sentences for crimes they feel are more horrific.

unsung

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

bgivens33 wrote:

Agreed... trying to determine the reason behind the intent is pointless.

Ok then.

Should burning a cross on a black person's lawn be the same as burning your own garbage in the street?

(don't give me the "trying to determine the reason behind the intent" in this story. The intent was pretty freaking obvious. :roll: )

There already is a crime called harassment, not to mention trespassing.

Prince Of Dorkness

unsung wrote:

There already is a crime called harassment, not to mention trespassing.

Burning a cross on a black family's front yard is not "harassment" and it's not "trespassing."

It goes MUCH deeper than that. And if you can't see that, you really never have experienced discrimination.

Prince Of Dorkness

bgivens33 wrote:

A judge(or jury, depending on jurisdiction) can impose harsher sentences for crimes they feel are more horrific.

so... you support "hate crimes" longer sentences so long as it's not called that and we just leave it up to the judge or jury?

Um... ok. That works. :?:

bgivens33

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

bgivens33 wrote:

A judge(or jury, depending on jurisdiction) can impose harsher sentences for crimes they feel are more horrific.

so... you support "hate crimes" longer sentences so long as it's not called that and we just leave it up to the judge or jury?

Um... ok. That works. :?:

Correct, though I don't care what you call it.

I oppose any mandatory minimum legislation. The judge and jury actually sat through the proceeding, the legislature didn't. I have zero problem with a jury imposing a march harsher penalty on a person for a crime they deem to be horrific and despicable. I have a serious, legal, problem with the federal government telling states how to prosecute criminals. I have a moral objection to the states legislating that, but I do respect their right to do so.

Prince Of Dorkness

bgivens33 wrote:

Correct, though I don't care what you call it.

I oppose any mandatory minimum legislation. The judge and jury actually sat through the proceeding, the legislature didn't. I have zero problem with a jury imposing a march harsher penalty on a person for a crime they deem to be horrific and despicable. I have a serious, legal, problem with the federal government telling states how to prosecute criminals. I have a moral objection to the states legislating that, but I do respect their right to do so.

Ok but... that's what it is.

See... like I said before, the "hate crimes" part goes to motive... it's so the prosecutors can bring that up as a motive... otherwise.. the judge and jury don't hear that evidence. That's the whole point.

polaris_x

Hate crimes legislation exists because the crime committed goes beyond the physical - there is a psychological component to the crime itself.

So if you burn a guys house down for kicks. Your crime is arson. But if you burn a guys house down because he is gay - the victim suffers a psychological trauma as well as having his house burnt down.

That's the simplistic version. As a victim of a hate crime - you will carry that scar and fear of another attack as long as they are part of the community that was targeted.