First test for the Hate Crimes Bill?

Freedom4all

Veteran
Apr 18, 2009
767
0
Probably not, as Eric Holder freely admints that there is "No Equality Under “Hateâ€￾ Crimes Bill" (Video Link)

Holders Testimony:
Under questioning, Attorney Gen. Holder was surprisingly forthright in admitting that the hate bill is not intended to protect everyone, or even the majority. He said only historically oppressed minorities were to benefit. This means Jews, blacks, homosexuals, women, etc. Holder made it clear that if a white Christian male, including a serviceman or police officer, was the victim of a violent hate crime by any minority he would have to find redress from traditional law. He could not avail himself of the triple penalties and rapid government/justice system response given a protected minority.

So then we have this incident in Ohio:

Akron police investigate teen mob attack on family

Akron police say they aren't ready to call it a hate crime or a gang initiation.

But to Marty Marshall, his wife and two kids, it seems pretty clear.

It came after a family night of celebrating America and freedom with a fireworks show at Firestone Stadium. Marshall, his family and two friends were gathered outside a friend's home in South Akron.

Out of nowhere, the six were attacked by dozens of teenage boys, who shouted ''This is our world'' and ''This is a black world'' as they confronted Marshall and his family.

How is this not considered hate crime?
 
How is keeping White and Spanish Fire-fighters from getting promotions because they are not black not considered "Racist" ?

We live in a double-standard country , with a double-standard government at the controls.....................at least for the next 3 years!

If theres one shining spot in all of this, it took Reps. 8 years to get booted out of office, the Demorats are gonna do it in 4 ! :up:
 
At this rate, it's only 1.5 years when the Democrats lose control. Obviously, the House is entirely up for re-election, and if enough Democrats in the 1/3 of the Senate up for re-election lose (or enough to lose their super-majority rule), Obama is in for a repeat of Clinton's "gridlock" where the feds are unable to continue screwing us over. :up:
 
At this rate, it's only 1.5 years when the Democrats lose control. Obviously, the House is entirely up for re-election, and if enough Democrats in the 1/3 of the Senate up for re-election lose (or enough to lose their super-majority rule), Obama is in for a repeat of Clinton's "gridlock" where the feds are unable to continue screwing us over. :up:

Very good Grasshopper................now you know why Nobama and his Posse are trying to shove their Socialist agenda down our throats , his 1st year of service ! :down:
 
Probably not, as Eric Holder freely admints that there is "No Equality Under “Hateâ€￾ Crimes Bill" (Video Link)

Holders Testimony:


So then we have this incident in Ohio:



How is this not considered hate crime?

Only white people are prejudiced. Didn't you get the memo?

B) xUT
 
How is keeping White and Spanish Fire-fighters from getting promotions because they are not black not considered "Racist" ?

We live in a double-standard country , with a double-standard government at the controls.....................at least for the next 3 years!
Have you actually read the original decision...

or the decision from the 3 member panel of the appeals court?
 
The same goes for hate crimes. Who determines what the definition of "Hate" is? Obama? Holder? Jimmy Swaggert? I mean Good Christ what are we going to have the thought police?


Is there a difference between someone painting a smiley face on a jews house as opposed to a swastika? They are both just graffiti right?
 
They both are just grafitti! Vandalism pure and simple.

I've seen it happen. A bunch of dumb arsed kids with no sense of history spray paint a swastika on a Jewish person's house on a dare. (Kid=Teens 16-18). SO WHAT! A swastika is along way from Treblinka or Buchenwald.

Klan robes don't exactly wind my watch either. Black Panthers and Nation of Islam can be a little disconcerting.

Real point is we have thousands of laws, most that provide the judge wide lattitude when it comes to sentencing. We don't need "hate" codified anymore than we need to be selling/buying Chia Obama's. A product that one could argue is racist and hateful. Should we ban it from the market? Or let the market rule on its stupidity?

Personally I think these so called hate groups should be REQUIRED to broadcast their views on a weekly basis as I have great confidence that Freedom Loving citizens will see them for exactly what they are and in a generation or two they will cease to exist.

Legislation and incarceration is not the answer. Education of the populace about these groups beliefs will do more to eradicate them then any law or prision could or should.
Amen, brother! I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it. That school of thought has been lost in todays tattle tale, cry baby society.
 
Sorry boys, but if you think painting this :) on my wall is the same as painting this
swastika.png
then I really do not know what to tell you other than you have no idea what it is like to e the victim of hate. I'm not talking about being picked on as a child, or hating liver and onions, I'm talking about the kind of hate that ends up with people dead or badly hurt.

My whole family are survivors of the holocaust. If you think the above images are the same then you have no idea what they represent. If some one hangs a noose in front of a black families home, it is not the same as putting TP in the tree. It represents death and it is a threat to body and person. They are not the same.

Murder is murder , vandalism is not vandalism.


I support their right to hate, to march, speak and assemble. That is a separate issue from vandalism.
 
I don't think that anyone is saying that spraying a swastika on someone's house is OK and should be legal.

That would be vandalism, plain and simple. Vandalism is already against the law.

Hate crime legislation means injecting prejudice into existing criminal law and I think it's a very bad idea. Law is supposed to be impartial, not preferential.
 
Amen, brother! I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it. That school of thought has been lost in todays tattle tale, cry baby society.

It's actually known as "The Wussification of America" !
 
I don't think that anyone is saying that spraying a swastika on someone's house is OK and should be legal.

That would be vandalism, plain and simple. Vandalism is already against the law.

Hate crime legislation means injecting prejudice into existing criminal law and I think it's a very bad idea. Law is supposed to be impartial, not preferential.


I am not arguing that any vandalism is OK. I am saying that the two acts I described above are markedly different in motivation and intent. As a result, I believe the punishments should be quite different. Someone who just 'tags' a house or what ever should not be punished nearly as harsh as someone who commits a 'hate crime'.

I see what you are saying about bias but I do not think it apples in this example. I think that 'hate crimes' carry more weight for the less violent crimes such as graffiti. Murder is murder and why someone was killed is IMO irrelevant.
 
I am not arguing that any vandalism is OK. I am saying that the two acts I described above are markedly different in motivation and intent. As a result, I believe the punishments should be quite different. Someone who just 'tags' a house or what ever should not be punished nearly as harsh as someone who commits a 'hate crime'.

Courts already have some discretion over punishment. There is a maximum punishment for vandalism, and it shouldn't be increased markedly just because of the vandal's thoughts. What if someone hates Jews but sprays "Mike was here"? Hate crime legislation is punishing people for having bad thoughts, which is a scary concept.

I see what you are saying about bias but I do not think it apples in this example. I think that 'hate crimes' carry more weight for the less violent crimes such as graffiti. Murder is murder and why someone was killed is IMO irrelevant.

Why someone was murdered makes a huge difference. Was the person murdered for his money? (capital murder) Was the murder negligent? (voluntary manslaugher) Was the murder purely accidental? (involuntary manslaughter) Was the murder planned in advance for a particular person or was it a temper trantrum gone terribly wrong? (first degree vs. second degree)

I don't understand how you can say that why someone was murdered makes no difference, but why someone vandalized a house makes a huge difference. That's the reverse of the saying "let the punishment fit the crime".
 
Courts already have some discretion over punishment. There is a maximum punishment for vandalism, and it shouldn't be increased markedly just because of the vandal's thoughts. What if someone hates Jews but sprays "Mike was here"? Hate crime legislation is punishing people for having bad thoughts, which is a scary concept.



Why someone was murdered makes a huge difference. Was the person murdered for his money? (capital murder) Was the murder negligent? (voluntary manslaugher) Was the murder purely accidental? (involuntary manslaughter) Was the murder planned in advance for a particular person or was it a temper trantrum gone terribly wrong? (first degree vs. second degree)

I don't understand how you can say that why someone was murdered makes no difference, but why someone vandalized a house makes a huge difference. That's the reverse of the saying "let the punishment fit the crime".
Murder is not manslaughter:

Murder: the unlawful premeditated killing of one person by another

Manslaughter: the crime of killing a human being without malice aforethought, or otherwise in circumstances not amounting to murder.

Source: Oxford English Dictionary

That is why the courts treat them differently, just as they do vandalism and hate crimes.
 
Sorry boys, but if you think painting this :) on my wall is the same as painting this
swastika.png
then I really do not know what to tell you other than you have no idea what it is like to e the victim of hate. I'm not talking about being picked on as a child, or hating liver and onions, I'm talking about the kind of hate that ends up with people dead or badly hurt.

My whole family are survivors of the holocaust. If you think the above images are the same then you have no idea what they represent. If some one hangs a noose in front of a black families home, it is not the same as putting TP in the tree. It represents death and it is a threat to body and person. They are not the same.

Murder is murder , vandalism is not vandalism.


I support their right to hate, to march, speak and assemble. That is a separate issue from vandalism.
Hate crime, hate speach. Its all Orwellian double speak.
Are you any less dead if someone clubs you over the head to steal your bling as opposed to a skin head clubbing you over the head because you wear a yarmulke? Why not enforce the current laws or make them tougher?
This reminds me of a scene from Spinal Tap. When the rocker is trying to explain that their amplifiere goes to 11. When Rob Reiner asked him why not make 10 louder, the rocker gave him a blank stare and said: "this one goes to 11" :lol:
The swastika was a nice touch. Plays on the emotions. Of course anyone can make claims on this forum without having to divulge any proof.
 
Back
Top