Hate Crimes

Four thugs tortured a mentally challenged young man, laughed about it and cast it on Facebook. They taunted him with racist slogans and anti Trump insults. The perps were black and the victim was white. Blacks clearly can be racist too and this crime is one of the most textbook examples of a hate crime. But should we have hate crimes at all?

WSJ has an interesting piece on this. These thugs committed crimes of violence and maybe kidnapping. They would be punished for this. Adding a hate crime just creates additional hatred among others.


I have heard that some white people are happy to have this video evidence of black racism and black perpetration of a hate crime. Should we not just punish the actual crime.

Consider the famous case of Mathew Shepard, the young gay man killed in Wyoming. There was lots of talk that Wyoming didn't have hate crime legislation. BUT Wyoming has the death penalty. How would adding a hate crime have made this punishment more severe?

As the linked articles says, "Years ago Thomas Sowell noted that "it took centuries of struggle and people putting their lives on the line to get rid of the idea that a crime against 'A' should be treated differently than the same crime committed against 'B."' As the attention on this Chicago beating shows, the hate-crime label tends to diminish the actual crime while promoting different standards of justice for different victims."

Posted by Christine & John at January 6, 2017 12:11 AM
Comments
Comment #411908

Once again, I’ve gotten a message saying my comment was held for moderation, which is a telltale sign that it was grabbed by the spam filter. Could C&J please check to see if it is there?

Posted by: Warren Porter at January 6, 2017 2:25 AM
Comment #411913

I cannot. I can barely hang on to this login. I don’t know who handles this anymore. I did find your comment, but the only option was to “unpublish” I don’t think anybody is actually running this site anymore. I copied your comment and pasted below. If you are reading this, it got through.

Just to head off a common right wing concern, I gladly concede that the term “hate” crime is poorly worded. I much prefer to call them “intimidation” crimes. So, please spare me the smug references to “love crimes” as if that is a natural antonym. It is not. Now, to address C&J’s question: Should we not just punish the actual crime? If an armed robber burglarizes a convenience store and kills his victim, would it make sense to prosecute him only for the burglary and not for the murder? Because that is essentially what you are advocating, ignoring one crime in light of the fact of another that was committed. Intimidation is an actual crime and in this case, the victims include not just unfortunate mentally handicapped young man, but the whole White community. The perpetrators of these horrific acts were not acting merely as criminals, but as the enforcers of vigilante justice. Typically, hate crimes target people not only by who they are but also by perceived transgression of some taboo. The classic example of this is Emmett Till, who was murdered not just because he was Black, but because he was black and allegedly signaled $exual interest in Carolyn Bryant, a married white woman. Till transgressed the unspoken taboos regarding interracial dating and marriage. Carolyn Bryant’s husband and his half brother took it upon themselves to make sure the Black community knew that any fraternization with opposite gender white people would be swiftly punished. This sort of vigilante justice does grave harm to the rule of law and to our institutions, which is why Till was not the only victim. How would adding a hate crime have made this punishment more severe? The point of charging a hate crime is not always in order to make the punishment more severe. Again, why do we bother charging the armed robber who kills with victim with burglary in addition to murder? Plea bargains and the mercy of prosecutorial discretion aside, prosecutors charge a defendant with all crimes for which they have sufficient evidence. Depending on the nature of the evidence, a jury has the option of rendering different verdicts for different charges. To put it succinctly, a man or woman is charged with a hate crime because it is his or her just deserts. Nothing more and nothing less. Following CS Lewis, I believe that criminal punishments are not crafted to rehabilitate or to exact revenge. They are merely what the guilty deserve. If a man deserves two capital sentences rather than just one, then that is what he should get. From the WSJ editorial board: would it be any improvement if Dylann Roof had murdered those innocent black churchgoers in South Carolina for their money Yes it would. If Roof only sought pecuniary gain, then the Black community would not have to fear being targeted for murder merely by their appearance and behavior. This is why the 762 murders in Chicago receive far less attention than a single innocent Black man gunned down by a White police officer. The former represents an incurable evil that has infected humanity ever since Cain and Abel. The latter represents an additional layer of hatred which is far more easily prevented and which causes the aforementioned harm to the greater community in addition to the individual who undergoes physical injury. As for Sowell’s comment: it took centuries of struggle and people putting their lives on the line to get rid of the idea that a crime against ‘A’ should be treated differently than the same crime committed against ‘B.”’ As the attention on this Chicago beating shows, the hate-crime label tends to diminish the actual crime while promoting different standards of justice for different victims. Sowell is really out of place here because hate crime legislation is blind to the identity of the community which is victimized. It doesn’t matter if the targets are gay or straight, white or black, Christian or Jewish or Muslim. The law applies equally. If a criminal intimidates Jews he will punished no differently than if he intimidates Blacks or gays.

Posted by: Christine & John at January 6, 2017 9:30 AM
Comment #411914

Warren

As you see, it went through on mine. I don’t know what is going on.

Posted by: Christine & John at January 6, 2017 9:31 AM
Comment #411919

Yeah, that’s it minus the formatting.

Things are getting really buggy as of late. I’ll have to check with liz, although getting a response from her is sometimes a hit or miss affair. It is strange that I am only getting this problem when I write a lot (my short comments always go through).

Posted by: Warren Porter at January 6, 2017 12:40 PM
Comment #411920

I had a comment stopped because it mentioned the race of several minorities. It was in a link. When I deleted the link the comment was posted.

I see you have several minorities mentioned in your posting of Warren Porter’s comment so I’m not sure if mentioning minority labels is actually the cause for holding the comment.

As for the subject matter of the post. Perhaps we should substitute the word “hate” with “heinous” and go from there.

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 6, 2017 12:41 PM
Comment #411921

I agree, C&J. IMO, providing a separate category of ‘hate crime’ for a criminal offense is nothing more than politicians pandering to the public.

I don’t know how ‘hate crime’ law came to be but I would bet it came thru the dems as part of their life long effort to keep their base worked up and afraid.

If more severe sentences resulted in more severe punishment I might be for a hate crime law. But, that is not the norm.

We have sufficient law to deal with every situation. But, as in Chicago and similar, if the law doesn’t get enforced at the level it should be enforced more or special laws are meaningless.

Today we hear Cuomo (?) is going to pardon a woman who was given a 75 to life sentence for her involvement in a bank robbery gone bad decades back. She has done about 35 years I believe. Two policemen and a civilian or two were killed.

At the time, in the heat of the moment, the judge/jury gave this woman 75 years. NOw, maybe she is ‘rehabilitated’ but what is her punishment? The liberals just want them rehabilitated and not punished. The woman could be rehabilitated in 6 months or 3 years, etc.

And, we often hear, we’ve ‘got too many prisoners’, makes the US look bad on the world stage. So, some 10 or 20 % are cut loose. Borderline stupid, IMO.

Sanctuary cities is, IMO, a crime against citizens. Yet, those officials were voted into office.

IMO, about half this nation has lost it mind. If Donald Trump hand’t of won the election This country would have been plunged into 3rd worldism and likely would never recover. We were that close and it ain’t done yet

Hopefully, things can be changed over the next 8 years.

Be afraid Chicago, that’s what your pols are depending on.

Posted by: roy ellis at January 6, 2017 12:44 PM
Comment #411922

Just to head off a common right wing concern, I gladly concede that the term “hate” crime is poorly worded. I much prefer to call them “intimidation” crimes. So, please spare me the smug references to “love crimes” as if that is a natural antonym. It is not.

Now, to address C&J’s question:

Should we not just punish the actual crime?
If an armed robber burglarizes a convenience store and kills his victim, would it make sense to prosecute him only for the burglary and not for the murder? Because that is essentially what you are advocating, ignoring one crime in light of the fact of another that was committed. Intimidation is an actual crime and in this case, the victims include not just unfortunate mentally handicapped young man, but the whole White community.

The perpetrators of these horrific acts were not acting merely as criminals, but as the enforcers of vigilante justice. Typically, hate crimes target people not only by who they are but also by perceived transgression of some taboo. The classic example of this is Emmett Till, who was murdered not just because he was Black, but because he was black and allegedly signaled $exual interest in Carolyn Bryant, a married white woman. Till transgressed the unspoken taboos regarding interracial dating and marriage. Carolyn Bryant’s husband and his half brother took it upon themselves to make sure the Black community knew that any fraternization with opposite gender white people would be swiftly punished. This sort of vigilante justice does grave harm to the rule of law and to our institutions, which is why Till was not the only victim.

How would adding a hate crime have made this punishment more severe?
The point of charging a hate crime is not always in order to make the punishment more severe. Again, why do we bother charging the armed robber who kills with victim with burglary in addition to murder? Plea bargains and the mercy of prosecutorial discretion aside, prosecutors charge a defendant with all crimes for which they have sufficient evidence. Depending on the nature of the evidence, a jury has the option of rendering different verdicts for different charges.


From the WSJ editorial board:

would it be any improvement if Dylann Roof had murdered those innocent black churchgoers in South Carolina for their money

Yes it would. If Roof only sought pecuniary gain, then the Black community would not have to fear being targeted for murder merely by their appearance and behavior. This is why the 762 murders in Chicago receive far less attention than a single innocent Black man gunned down by a White police officer. The former represents an incurable evil that has infected humanity ever since Cain and Abel. The latter represents an additional layer of hatred which is far more easily prevented and which causes the aforementioned harm to the greater community in addition to the individual who undergoes physical injury.

As for Sowell’s comment:

it took centuries of struggle and people putting their lives on the line to get rid of the idea that a crime against ‘A’ should be treated differently than the same crime committed against ‘B.”’ As the attention on this Chicago beating shows, the hate-crime label tends to diminish the actual crime while promoting different standards of justice for different victims.

Sowell is really out of place here because hate crime legislation is blind to the identity of the community which is victimized. It doesn’t matter if the targets are gay or straight, white or black, Christian or Jewish or Muslim. The law applies equally. If a criminal intimidates Jews he will punished no differently than if he intimidates Blacks or gays.

Posted by: Warren Porter at January 6, 2017 12:55 PM
Comment #411923

It worked!

Posted by: Warren Porter at January 6, 2017 12:56 PM
Comment #411924

What did you do?

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 6, 2017 1:06 PM
Comment #411925

Trump inspires many people it seems. We have seen the neofascist shouting for joy as well as an increase in attacks on people of color by white supremacist groups. Retaliation by people of color only seems to me to be a natural evolution of extremism as violence becomes the way we solve our problems. This crime was a result of racist in the police department killing people of color, of Trumps anti-establishment rise to power and the sense of victory it inspires in the neofascist groups, IMHO.

When we excuse the unnecessary violence by those in power we only create more violence. These people who attacked this kid were wrong to do so. But then what did we expect the past several years when we condoned shooting kids for wearing hoodies or talking back to police.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 6, 2017 1:09 PM
Comment #411926

Think about this j2. What if we put juveniles and young criminals on the rock pile, busting big ones into little ones? Further, take away the ball court and such. Six or 8 hours a day busting rocks. For every day you don’t bust rocks your sentence is extended one day.

IMO. that would be a big deterrent to re-offenders. That would make short sentences effective, most would get the idea within six months to a year or two.

Today, enforcement/punishment is little more than a joke.

Posted by: roy ellis at January 6, 2017 1:36 PM
Comment #411927

Phx8

“Retaliation by people of color …” You you think torturing an innocent young man, who the perps evidently knew, is retaliation? Those who would do this sort of thing in retaliation for general incidents are really horrible racists, well beyond that pale of civilization.

I will assume I misinterpreted your thoughts on this issue. I doubt you can really believe such racist things.

You might also revise the killing by racist police idea. The numbers of shooting by police in Chicago, even if we include all the guilty people shot, is astonishingly small compared to ordinary homicide by gang bangers and ordinary thugs. You are assuming that the people of Chicago are so stupid or misinformed that they cannot calculate the real numbers. Unfortunately, I think you may be right about BLM, but not everybody is so misinformed.

Posted by: Christine & John at January 6, 2017 1:57 PM
Comment #411929

Joe, these people are not the sharpest tacks in the drawer IMHO. I am saying given the current energy in this country it is hard to say what drove them to such an act. I am saying one possible reason is retaliation, for a deal gone bad, a perceived insult, or thinking they were getting even with the man. Perhaps it was just opportunity and the desire to be evil. Time will tell. It just seems it is a national character defect to me.

As I have stated many times I think all of us are, to one degree or another, racist. Whether we be white, black, Indian, Asian, Latino, or whatever. Perhaps tribal is a better word that racist but who knows. I’m torn on hate crimes especially after reading Warrens comment above.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 6, 2017 2:38 PM
Comment #411930

Warren wrote; “So, please spare me the smug references to “love crimes” as if that is a natural antonym.”

I suppose that was aimed at me as I have used this antonym. Warren apparently is not aware of “love” crimes. Just a simple example should suffice. Stealing bread to feed ones family if they are starving.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 6, 2017 2:47 PM
Comment #411932

It stems from a range of things J2. Poor education, poor to no parenting, poor job opportunities, poor support from family thru community and so on - - -

Sum it up with poor leadership top to bottom.

Trump will ‘fix it’.

Posted by: roy ellis at January 6, 2017 2:55 PM
Comment #411933

So-called hate crimes are nothing but feel good ‘laws’ intended to pander to special interest groups.

As for these scum, their actions are the direct result of a dysfunctional culture and indoctrinated hate and racism.

Posted by: kctim at January 6, 2017 2:57 PM
Comment #411934

My limited understanding of our judicial system is that both judges and jury’s are given sentencing guidelines. If one is considering the punishment for a heinous crime, the punishment can be more severe. No hate crime label required.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 6, 2017 3:02 PM
Comment #411936

I’d consider the barbaric acts of the Zodiac killer far more heinous than many hate crimes, so WW’s neologism muddies things even worse. I reiterate my support for renaming these “intimidation crimes”, but I will use the “hate crime” terminology because it is more familiar and makes my writing easier to understand.

If one is considering the punishment for a heinous crime, the punishment can be more severe. No hate crime label required.


It isn’t a matter of degree or intensity, but a wholly separate crime. Consider the case of these two men in Pennsylvania a few years ago. These guys beat and killed a man simply because he was Latino, but there was not enough evidence to support convicting them for murder. However, there was sufficient evidence to demonstrate that they were guilty of violating Luis Ramirez’s civil rights.

I suppose that was aimed at me as I have used this antonym. Warren apparently is not aware of “love” crimes. Just a simple example should suffice. Stealing bread to feed ones family if they are starving.-
7 years ago, you wrote (Comment #290559):
I find it hard to understand how some crimes are “love crimes” and others are “hate crimes.”
Now, you’ve adapted and changed your tune. Still, stealing bread is not a proper antonym and is not germane to this discussion. Posted by: Warren Porter at January 6, 2017 4:52 PM
Comment #411938

Warren doesn’t like my “love” crime of stealing bread as it doesn’t fit nicely into his square slot. Too bad.

He writes; “It isn’t a matter of degree or intensity, but a wholly separate crime.”

Many thanks for that sentence Warren, it explains everything.

“Hate” is now the crime. Private thoughts must be policed, and if not politically correct, punished.

If I murder from the emotion of “love” (murdering my lover’s husband to get him out of the picture) I am punished less severely than if I murder my lover’s husband because he beats her and I “hate” him.

The Leftist mind is so wishy-washy that it can be lead down nearly any primrose path by some flim-flam lawyer working the jury. “Punish this guy more because he has hate in his heart”. “Punish this guy less because, as an act of love for the unborn, he murdered the abortion doctor.”

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 6, 2017 5:13 PM
Comment #411941
“Hate” is now the crime. Private thoughts must be policed, and if not politically correct, punished.

Nope. “Intimidation” is the crime. Private thoughts remain as unregulated as they have always been.

if I murder my lover’s husband because he beats her and I “hate” him.
There isn’t a single jurisdiction in the US that would construe this example as a “hate crime”. Posted by: Warren Porter at January 6, 2017 5:28 PM
Comment #411957
It stems from a range of things J2. Poor education, poor to no parenting, poor job opportunities, poor support from family thru community and so on - - -

Education, parenting, job skills, family and community have all went downhill since we were young Roy, perhaps baby boomers screwed the pooch on this one.


Sum it up with poor leadership top to bottom.

Trump will ‘fix it’.

Surely you jest Roy, Trump is the problem not the solution. He wants more police, more prisons and more authoritarianism. Social conservatives and social justice warriors are more a part of the answer than more Trump.

As we continue are march towards the South Americanization of our country the more we see problems with gangs and violent crimes. IMHO we need to work to create a middle class instead of gutting the middle class. Trump is clueless on this issue.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 7, 2017 1:12 AM
Comment #411972

j2, in ref to all those killings in Chicago - a Chicago cop was on FOX this AM saying that there was little patrolling/street work going on there. Mostly answering/responding to 911 calls. He says the enforcement problem is politics, which we all know to be true.

Interesting that WP and phx8 believe Obama walks on water while you and I believe we are headed to ‘South Americanization’ of this country.

Yet you say Trump is clueless on creating a middle class. Just blows my mind. Trump’s whole campaign was about rebuilding the middle class. You must be aware of the folks he has selected for his cabinet.

I would say just sit back and enjoy the ride j2. It’s going to be a beautiful thing. I believe his success will be largely measured by how well he manages to push back on GOP globalist. If he is weak in any quarter we will get on his ass. Rattle his twitter feed and so on - - -

Posted by: roy ellis at January 7, 2017 1:13 PM
Comment #411977

if I murder my lover’s husband because he beats her and I “hate” him.

There isn’t a single jurisdiction in the US that would construe this example as a “hate crime”. Posted by: Warren Porter at January 6, 2017 5:28 PM

Oh, Really?

Let’s suppose I am a white cop and murder my lover’s black Muslim gay husband?

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 7, 2017 3:45 PM
Comment #411978

j2t2 described what is happening under eight years of Obama.

“As we continue are march towards the South Americanization of our country the more we see problems with gangs and violent crimes.”

Thanks for understanding the genesis of your concerns j2t2.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 7, 2017 3:48 PM
Comment #411979
murder my lover’s black Muslim gay husband

That wouldn’t be a hate crime either. There’s no intimidation directed at the wider community.

Posted by: Warren Porter at January 7, 2017 4:08 PM
Comment #411980

Warren…let’s just face it, your full of it.

To suggest that “intimidation directed at the wider community” is a special crime is silly.

How about men pissing in public? Many women would consider that intimidation. Hate crime?

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 7, 2017 4:13 PM
Comment #411981

“Intimidation” has multiple meanings. Please don’t confuse them.

Posted by: Warren Porter at January 7, 2017 4:23 PM
Comment #411982

The sort of intimidation that we criminalize is the sort that accompanies vigilante justice.

Posted by: Warren Porter at January 7, 2017 4:25 PM
Comment #411983

Warren, when you have sorted through your muddled, confusing and ever changing position please let us know.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 7, 2017 4:33 PM
Comment #411985

From my earlier comment:

The perpetrators of these horrific acts were not acting merely as criminals, but as the enforcers of vigilante justice.
Posted by: Warren Porter at January 7, 2017 4:40 PM
Comment #411988

Opinion is fine Warren.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 7, 2017 4:57 PM
Comment #411996

I suggest modifying the text of our Hate Crime laws in order to replace the “hate” terminology with terminology emphasizing that “intimidation” is what is being criminalized. I also suggest modifying the law to emphasize that the legislation refers to intimidation purposed to act as vigilante justice, enforcing a certain rule or taboo regarding the actions or behaviors of racial/gender/religious/etc groups.

Posted by: Warren Porter at January 7, 2017 6:18 PM
Comment #411997

Your suggestion may be good for defense lawyers Warren, but adding another layer of confusion upon our criminal code is simply not necessary and neither are our “hate” crime laws.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 7, 2017 6:30 PM
Comment #411999

Have my Leftie Buddies ever wondered why, “despite the fact that any blighted ghetto you run across in America is practically guaranteed to be run by Democrats, every ailment of black Americans is hung around the necks of white Americans who are apparently guilty of holding back those poor people via racism and imaginary white privilege.”

http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2017/01/07/if-you-listen-to-liberals-why-not-kidnap-and-torture-white-people-n2267943

Here’s a little “meat” for my good buddie phx8 to chew on for the weekend.

“Along with his continual executive overreach, the President should be remembered for expanding the federal debt by almost $10 trillion, giving us a stimulus plan with no “shovel ready jobs” and forcing upon the American people the unworkable and disastrous Obamacare legislation that will hopefully be repealed in short order.

Obama also decimated our military, allowed ISIS to gain a foothold in over 30 countries, unlawfully granted amnesty to millions of illegal aliens, and presided over an administration littered with corruption from the IRS to the Department of Justice.”

http://townhall.com/columnists/jeffcrouere/2017/01/07/the-chicago-hate-crime-is-real-legacy-of-barack-obama-n2267940

Goodbye for now my friends. Time to get into football watching mode.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 7, 2017 7:04 PM
Comment #412000
Your suggestion may be good for defense lawyers Warren
And this is a bad thing?
but adding another layer of confusion upon our criminal code is simply not necessary and neither are our “hate” crime laws.

I subscribe to CS Lewis’ idea that criminals are punished because that is what they deserve. Someone who uses violence to intimidate a larger community deserves to be punished for that act.

Posted by: Warren Porter at January 7, 2017 7:59 PM
Comment #412008
2t2 described what is happening under eight years of Obama.

“As we continue are march towards the South Americanization of our country the more we see problems with gangs and violent crimes.”

Thanks for understanding the genesis of your concerns j2t2.
Posted by: Royal Flush at January 7, 2017 3:48 PM

Unfortunately Royal it seems you still don’t understand. So lets give it another go shall we…

Long before Obama was elected president in 2008, the United States existed. While that is tough for many conservatives to grasp it is a fact. It was the 80’s when we started our decline into what I refer to as the South Americanization of the United States.

The combination, IMHO, of conservatism/corporatism and globalism being the cause. The destroying of unions, the regressive taxation favored by conservatives, the wars and the starve the beast strategy and a myriad of other things as well. Perhaps we can sum this up into the corpratization or privatization of America. In other words corporate America started weaning us off their tit and started treating the American people the way they treated the people of South America.

While we are on it lets also remember the conservative led Congress we have had the past 6 years, not to mention the states rush to conservative legislatures and governors. So you can continue to blame Obama, one man, while ignoring the rest of the story but it only shows your foolishness.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 8, 2017 11:15 AM
Comment #412009

OK j2t2, I’ll bite. Do you believe the rise in “gangs and violent crimes” is a symptom of, or caused by politics, politicians, or non-political individuals? Why?

I don’t really get the connection between gang killings in Chicago and “conservatism/corporatism and globalism” you credit.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 8, 2017 2:35 PM
Comment #412010

Let’s not forget the 60 years of liberal programs that make dependency the norm, and the 100 years of inflation that creates more poor people.

Those programs were all created by leftists, so if you want to include the past history of the U.S. as a cause of our problems let’s include all the history of the U.S., shall we?

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 8, 2017 2:39 PM
Comment #412011

Good points Weary. The Left is the Poster Child of government dependence and deficit spending.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 8, 2017 2:40 PM
Comment #412014

We should also include the Lawyer Employer Law, also called the Civil Rights Act. The act that got the lawyer between neighbors, co-workers, politicians and the people.

As with the 14th amendment, the Civil Rights Act is being used to benefit a group of people whom the law was not intended to help.

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 8, 2017 2:53 PM
Comment #412015
The Left is the Poster Child of government dependence and deficit spending.

What do you reckon next year’s deficit will be?

Posted by: Warren Porter at January 8, 2017 3:59 PM
Comment #412021

Good question Warren. I am of the opinion that President Trump will be good for our economy resulting in greatly enhanced tax revenues. If correct, the deficit should not explode with the spending Trump indicates he wants.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 8, 2017 4:27 PM
Comment #412022
If correct, the deficit should not explode with the spending Trump indicates he wants.

“Not explode” is such wishy washy language. Will the deficit be larger than $700 billion or smaller?

Posted by: Warren Porter at January 8, 2017 6:05 PM
Comment #412025

If Trump and the Republicans can’t get something positive done in the first two years it’s not going to look good for them.

Democratics are going to be the worst form of obstructionists in the next two years. It’s all they have. They’re void of any new ideas. All they will do is protect their position. It’s up to Trump to point out when they are standing in the way, and it’s up to Republicans to get positive results.

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 8, 2017 9:59 PM
Comment #412035
OK j2t2, I’ll bite. Do you believe the rise in “gangs and violent crimes” is a symptom of, or caused by politics, politicians, or non-political individuals?

Both I would say as this seems to be an all encompassing question. But perhaps the corruption of our system by monied interests would be a better answer than politicians and governments.

Why?
First of all I’m not sure there is a rise from say the 1920’s or the 1950’s. The FBI tells us many crimes are down to record lows. BTW I’m thinking of what can be called organized violent crime not random violent crimes.


Second of all there is no one simple answer to the complex problem of gangs and violent crimes. Today there seems to be an acceptance of violent crimes that we may not have had in the past, compare the Manson killings with Airport shooting this week. Terrorist acts or mental illness? The torture C&J speaks about, well we as a nation have condoned torture during the Bush era and now individuals are empowered to thing it is acceptable because the other side is doing it.


I don’t really get the connection between gang killings in Chicago and “conservatism/corporatism and globalism” you credit.

These forces have colluded to create income equality and shredding the middle class in this country. Look at Weary propagating myths right along with you, about any program intended to help create a sense of equal opportunity. Starve the beast did more to cause the build up in debt than anything Dems have done the past 60 years… well except WWII which caused the Korean”war”, VietNam, and the rest since then.

While Weary continues on with foolish myths lets remember the last time repubs have had such power over the country, 1928. So lets hope this run is better but lets plan or a rerun of 1929 as things aren’t looking good for the country as we march towards(or back to) the 30’s. .

SO I’m thinking Macho Camacho as a fitting nickname for Trump.. what do you say. Not just because he fits the character in the movie Idiocracy so well but because of the reviews of this movie that seems to depict Trump and his deeds so far.

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/macho_2016/

Posted by: j2t2 at January 9, 2017 12:06 PM
Comment #412036

Ya know, it may seem I have gotten off subject a bit but then the title of this thread is “Hate Crimes” and…. well…it seems to be a good summary for the Donald “Macho Camacho” Trump administration.

SO maybe this is a bit early but I am thinking after seeing just a small slice of what Putin/Trump and their cronies have planned for this country historians will look back and think “Hate Crimes” may be appropriate for this period in our history. Time will tell and perhaps each of us will alter our opinion on hate crime laws after Putin/Trump is though with us.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 9, 2017 12:15 PM
Comment #412037

What equal opportunity are you referring to, j2t2? The programs I spoke of are decades old. How can anyone consider them a success when they are a permanent fixture in our government?

The only success that can be claimed by these programs is that they give the Democratic party a purpose for existing.

Also, wasn’t the Federal Reserve Act’s only purpose to stop the wild fluctuations in the stock market? What happened with that goal in 1929? Was it’s original purpose simply a lie? If you like your money you can keep it!

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 9, 2017 12:26 PM
Comment #412043

I encourage my Leftie Pals, and all the others out there, to continue trashing Republicans, Conservatives, the working class, the business class and White Americans. The political losses they have experienced at the local, county, state and national level are staggering.

I welcome their confusion over why their political policies are so unpopular come election time. I really don’t want them to wake up and clean up.

Please continue to follow the Hollywood elite down the primrose path to irrelevance.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 9, 2017 5:13 PM
Comment #412049

It appears Trump has j2t2’s panties in a twist. His wild insinuations are like water off a duck’s back. HateHateHate. Zero constructive. Load your cannons with more than hot air, j2t2!


Posted by: Weary Willie at January 9, 2017 8:09 PM
Comment #412063

The main reason people on the right oppose hate crimes is that they listen to people who don’t want their minority-terrorizing behavior to carry more risk.

Hate crimes legislation does not make anything illegal that isn’t already so. It merely says that if your behavior reflects a strong bigotry, you will be punished more harshly. This is no different than punishing a homicide more harshly or less depending on whether the murder was planned, whether the target was an officer of the law, whether the person was in their right mind or not, etc.

The four people who did this made a point of terrorizing their poor victim, whether they were strongly sincere about it or not, by making a point that he was a white kid. It certainly qualifies and they certain deserve harsher punishment for it.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 10, 2017 10:07 AM
Comment #412071
What equal opportunity are you referring to, j2t2? The programs I spoke of are decades old. How can anyone consider them a success when they are a permanent fixture in our government?

Weary you seem to forget the programs you mention have largely been “conservatized” and by that I mean screwed up by conservatives trying to rid us of them, or long gone.

What happened with that goal in 1929? Was it’s original purpose simply a lie? If you like your money you can keep it!

The goal of conservatives was achieved in 1929 Weary. The country was led into the great depression. Republican majorities seem to cause financial collapse. The constant whine of conservatives to cut regulations when put into law causes economic collapse. We never learn because all we hear is government is the problem bu the same conservatives that are the problem.

I encourage my Leftie Pals, and all the others out there, to continue trashing Republicans, Conservatives,

I will continue to do so as long as they continue to do what they do.

the working class, the business class and White Americans.

will learn soon that Putin/Trump have been playing them, well maybe not the business class.


The political losses they have experienced at the local, county, state and national level are staggering.

And IMHO will continue to mount for some time. Thank you gerrymandering, voter suppression and the concerted effort of the conservative propaganda machine, Zeig Heil. This is why critical thinking skills should be taught in public schools if Trump doesn’t get rid of them.

I welcome their confusion over why their political policies are so unpopular come election time. I really don’t want them to wake up and clean up.

Well the dems do deserve what they got in November. But even with Clinton they did win the majority vote so what does that say Royal?

The issues they speak to are unpopular but they speak to them, minorities and gays and whoever else the preaching for dollars Christians are after aren’t popular but should be afforded protections just like the rest of us. IMHO if the dems start addressing those from the working class left behind by globalization they will go a long way to solve their problems. But it appears they will stick with identity politics instead.

IMHO they should go after the gerrymandering and voter suppression laws on the state level. Seems to me it won’t be to long before dems will need to take charge of states if Kansas and its failed conservative utopia are any example.

It appears Trump has j2t2’s panties in a twist. His wild insinuations are like water off a duck’s back.HateHateHate. Zero constructive.

Weary nothing in a twist here but your description of Trump already giving up on campaign promises, or wild insinuations as you say, rolling off your back like water on a duck is kinda sad, why have you set your standards so low. Why accept his hatred an lack of constructive action?


Load your cannons with more than hot air, j2t2!

What a way to phrase Putin/Trump words and deeds to date Weary, accurate but… well you better throw in a few Zeig Heil Mein Trump if you don’t want repercussions from Trumps handlers…right?

Posted by: j2t2 at January 10, 2017 12:51 PM
Comment #412072

The main reason people oppose ‘hate crimes’, (and it’s not just those on the right) is because they are not applied equally, which results in one group of people being treated differently than another group. This, like most left-wing policy, creates division and resentment.

Posted by: kctim at January 10, 2017 1:00 PM
Comment #412075

kctim,

In what manner is one group treated differently than another group?

Posted by: Warren Porter at January 10, 2017 3:26 PM
Comment #412082

By the belief that actions against one group are automatically assumed to be based on hate, while actions against another group are automatically assumed to be based on anything but hate.

Biased reporting by the media doesn’t help matters either.

Posted by: kctim at January 10, 2017 3:59 PM
Comment #412091

Nobody assumes anything. People look at available evidence and make their best conclusion.

Posted by: Warren Porter at January 10, 2017 8:11 PM
Comment #412113

Is that why there are claims of hate crimes that lead to rallies, ‘protests’ and riots before any available evidence is known?

Is that why Zimmerman and Wilson were considered guilty of a hate crime from day one, but the Chicago incident was initially said not believed to be a hate crime, despite the video evidence?

Posted by: kctim at January 11, 2017 10:33 AM
Comment #412122

Well the dems do deserve what they got in November. But even with Clinton they did win the majority vote so what does that say Royal?

What it says to me j2t2 is that the Democrat Party is now the Bi-Coastal Party.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 11, 2017 4:10 PM
Comment #412152
Is that why Zimmerman and Wilson were considered guilty of a hate crime from day one, but the Chicago incident was initially said not believed to be a hate crime, despite the video evidence?

More than a year after the incidents, hate crime charges were filed against neither George Zimmerman nor Darren Wilson. Mere days after the incident in Chicago, hate crime charges were filed.

Posted by: Warren Porter at January 12, 2017 1:46 PM
Comment #415381

You’re a really valuable internet site; couldn’t make it without ya.

Posted by: Omnicef at April 17, 2017 4:25 PM
Comment #416897

You got a great blog here man!

Eskort ladies

Posted by: Torfag at June 2, 2017 10:11 AM
Comment #417477

Hate crime legislation is another one of those ‘feel good’ laws that have no practical function but to make it less criminal to kill someone not on the hate crime list.
essay writer uk

Posted by: best essay writing service uk at June 21, 2017 5:28 AM
Post a comment