Rep. King: Hate crimes law creates ‘sacred cows’ that puts ‘victimizer’s focus on someone else.’
Rep. King: Hate crimes law creates ‘sacred cows’ that puts ‘victimizer’s focus on someone else.’
The right wing has been in hysterics this past week over the hate crimes bill (also known as the Matthew Shepard Act) that the House passed last week, calling it tyrannical and Orwellian and claiming it will end religious freedom. Last night on Fox News, Rep. Steve King (R-IA) went even further, classifying these crimes as an either/or situation. He argued that if society punishes people for attacking someone based on their gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability, it will result in more attacks on the rest of the public:
KING: If they’re one of God’s children let’s protect them equally and when you go down the path of special protected status, then you end up with the sacred cows walking around the street that have another extra shield around them that actually would put the victimizer’s focus on someone else. I think it’s unequal protection of the law that results from it.
Watch it:
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
So, King is worried that the rednecks who drag black people behind their pickup trucks will switch to dragging white people behind their pickup trucks, because of the hate crime law?
May 6th, 2009 at 1:45 pmGee, I almost hate him. Does that prove his point?
(Just joking, Steve: I wouldn’t do harm to you or anyone else.)
May 6th, 2009 at 1:45 pmWhat!!??
May 6th, 2009 at 1:47 pmIs he serious?
.
Dear Rep. Steve King (R-IA),
So it’s O.K. to assault someone because they aren’t shielded?
.
May 6th, 2009 at 1:49 pmyou end up with the sacred cows walking around the street that have another extra shield around them that actually would put the victimizer’s focus on someone else.
Can anyone translate this for me?
Is he saying that the focus is supposed to be on the “victimizer” as opposed to the victim? Do ‘victimizers’ have ‘victimizer’ rights that I’m unaware of? When they attack someone they’re supposed to get all the attention or something?
May 6th, 2009 at 1:49 pmVictimizer Shield? –I think someone got a sneak peek at the new Star Trek Movie!!!
May 6th, 2009 at 1:49 pmShoeless,
May 6th, 2009 at 1:50 pmKing is worried that if gays are protected, he’ll be next.
Can these people get anymore moronic? (I know, stupid question.)
May 6th, 2009 at 1:51 pmFawlty Logic King
May 6th, 2009 at 1:51 pmLets see, this bill calls for incremental sentencing for motivation in the commission of a crime. It doesn’t change the law, just the punishment.
Oh wait, it does add a federal aspect which means local law enforcement has to abide by federal law.
What part of this is new?
May 6th, 2009 at 1:51 pmThis doesn’t make sense. These guys are loathesome. Bachman, King and Virginia Foxx, they are all pathetic. They don’t deserve to serve in government. Unreal.
May 6th, 2009 at 1:51 pm“claiming it will end religious freedom”
Only if religious freedom means the freedom to beat & kill people because your religion tells you to hate them. These people are sick.
May 6th, 2009 at 1:52 pmJeezuz! Even their arguments are getting more lame. The GOP has nothing to offer, they can only pander to their least common denominator.
May 6th, 2009 at 1:52 pmi dont follow the logic….so it would be preferable to beat a gay person rather than “someone else”…
& gay people are selfish because they should choose to TAKE the beating, less it is visited upon…”someone else”?
i dont get it.
thats too dumb, even for a repub.
May 6th, 2009 at 1:52 pmSo some lunatic that’s out to assault/kill someone because he’s gay or black or Jewish or Muslim might wind up killing some random white Republican because he’s afraid of the repurcussions of being convicted of a hate crime as opposed to simple murder?
I guess it makes as much sense as anything else coming out of today’s GNOP.
PEACE
May 6th, 2009 at 1:52 pmI’m starting to think that King and Crazy Shelly (InsaneR-Mn.) are long-lost siblings.
May 6th, 2009 at 1:53 pmWhoa… This is serious business.
If my experience in Kolkata is any indication, soon The Gays will be roaming the streets unencumbered, cars and autorickshaws will avoid running them over, we’ll be spray-painting them red for Holi, and under no circumstances will we be allowed to eat them.
Terrifying. Simply terrifying.
May 6th, 2009 at 1:53 pmRep. King, your complimentary can of Planter’s Mixed WingNuts is on it’s way to you. Enjoy!
May 6th, 2009 at 1:54 pmWhat if they were one of Allah’s children, or Buddah’s children, or Vishnu’s children, or Zeus’s children, or Mother Nature’s children? Would that change Rep. King’s views?
Sometimes the stupid just creeps out of their mouths, and sometimes, as in King’s case, it spews out like green pea soup…
May 6th, 2009 at 1:54 pmIs he implying that a ‘victimizer’ simply must attack SOMEONE when the mood hits them and if the first person who crosses their path looks gay then this law will make them wait for the next person and if that person doesn’t look gay then the ‘victimizer’ will attack THEM, which would be unfair to the non-gay looking person? Because, you know, it’s not their fault they’re not gay!
That is some contorted thinking there. And these people get elected…
May 6th, 2009 at 1:55 pmSorry O.T.
US interrogators may have killed dozens, human rights researcher and rights group say
By John Byrne
Published: May 6, 2009
Speaking of hate and crimes…
May 6th, 2009 at 1:56 pm… Of course it’s not TORTURE when America does it.
This bill is going to have a chilling affect on assault.
May 6th, 2009 at 1:57 pmHow can the klan rise again under these circumstances?
What will all the abortion doctor killers do to fill their time? And don’t forget about the nazis’, course they hate everyone but they need someone to beat up.
Religious freedom means attacking people? Or does attacking people mean religious freedom? Since this is coming from a supposedly Christian source, does either make any sense?
Can we get the mullahs out of our politics?
May 6th, 2009 at 1:58 pmSo, let me get this right… gay and straight people shouldn’t have equal rights in marriage, BUT everyone should have equal protection under the law to be beaten?!?
May 6th, 2009 at 1:59 pmMax Anax junius -1 Says:
In all, 98 detainees have died while in US hands. Thirty-four homicides have been identified, with at least eight detainees — and as many as 12 — having been tortured to death,
May 6th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
_____________
Waiiit a second. What kind of switcheroo are you pulling here? That’s not torture!
According to the torture memos, torture means pain equivalent to organ failure or death. Not equal to organ failure or death. Therefore, if the guy DIES, it’s NOT TORTURE!
May 6th, 2009 at 1:59 pmConcernedParent Says:
This bill is going to have a chilling affect on assault.
Yes, think about it! Before you assault someone now you’re going to have to determine that they’re not gay or disabled! What a burden to place on someone just because they want to do an assault! How unfair.
May 6th, 2009 at 2:01 pmAccording to the torture memos, torture means pain equivalent to organ failure or death. Not equal to organ failure or death. Therefore, if the guy DIES, it’s NOT TORTURE!
No, it just means it sucks to be them.
May 6th, 2009 at 2:01 pmKing / Bachmann – 2012
Proven whiners
Batshit crazy
Party of Pain
How could America go wrong?
May 6th, 2009 at 2:04 pm“We protect ourselves
May 6th, 2009 at 2:05 pmBy redirecting the hate
To commies and gays”
King and Bachmann are in a dead heat in the race for Most Stupid Rep Ever.
May 6th, 2009 at 2:06 pmSHOULDN’T a victimizer’s focus be directed anywhere but the target he/she wishes to victimize?
May 6th, 2009 at 2:07 pmI think it’s unequal protection of the law that results from it.
OK – how is this not parallel to marriage rights? No one is asking/demanding special rights, just equal right under the law. If everyone else is protected EXCEPT gays, then it isn’t equal.
To make everyone equal, should we do away with legislation that makes it a more heinous crime to attack someone because of the religion, no matter how much of a incoherent jerk it makes them?
May 6th, 2009 at 2:07 pmUsing King’s logic, all the bedwetting right wingnuts will declare themselves gay, in order to protect themselves from being murdered.
May 6th, 2009 at 2:07 pmGawd, talk about backwardass yodel.
It’s to make the most vulnerable safe, nutzo.
It’s pretty hard to run in a wheelchair, teabagger.
PGW
May 6th, 2009 at 2:08 pmRight wingers fear the loss of another group to ostracize
poor little right wing cowards
May 6th, 2009 at 2:08 pmConcernedParent Says:
This bill is going to have a chilling affect on assault.
May 6th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
_________
Not necessarily. Hate groups just need to look at the fine print. The bill clearly states that it punishes people for “attacking someone based on their gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability.” Not gender identity, sexual orientation, AND disability.
So if you target a Hispanic person or a gay person or a white person in a wheelchair, it’s a hate crime. But combos are still in the clear – the KKK can beat up as many gay Hispanics in wheelchairs or transgender African-American amputees or bisexual Vietnamese-Americans in mobility scooters as they want.
May 6th, 2009 at 2:10 pmWell I hate Repubes so if I beat one of them to death wouldn’t they want this extra bit of justice?
May 6th, 2009 at 2:10 pmThe law has nothing to do with freedom of speech, say what you will. However, like in most modern societies you can’t just go around beating up people, especially because of who they are. The fact that the right is fighting against this makes you believe that their arguments about anything are invalid and just a way to be the opposite. They were screaming that we invaded iraq to spread democracy and fight oppression, but with ideals like the gop has embraced, saddam hussein seems quite warm and fuzzy.
May 6th, 2009 at 2:11 pmZooey Says:
Using King’s logic, all the bedwetting right wingnuts will declare themselves gay, in order to protect themselves from being murdered.
May 6th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
__________
Is xenophobia-based incontinence a disability? I think I may have found their loophole.
May 6th, 2009 at 2:11 pmThis doesn’t provide any “special protection ” of gays from arbitrary assault–it acknowledges the specificity of the crime to provide a guide to proportional concomitant punishment after the fact—just as their is simple assault, assault with a deadly weapon, attempted murder, manslaughter and premeditated murder.
I expect the only TV news outlets that will address King’s insane and venal logic will be Olberman and Maddow. The rest will ignore it.
Oh there’s also JDS and Colbert–but that will be it.
May 6th, 2009 at 2:12 pmRepublicans want to protect their right to hate.
Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, Ann Coulter, Michael Savage, G. Gordon Liddy, and Pat Robertson would be nothing if they couldn’t spew hatred for a living.
May 6th, 2009 at 2:12 pmWell toasterhead,
I’m just going with the Congressional meme…
… Even when the TORTURE rises to MURDER.
But I’m still confused why Congress thinks this angle works.
May 6th, 2009 at 2:13 pmMy two Senators refuse to address this subject…
… So I refuse to vote for them.
Rep. King is just pandering to the hate criminal wing of the Republican Party. He has to win a Republican primary election.
May 6th, 2009 at 2:14 pmwatch the repugs will change their quote when we tell them how stupid it sounds.
repugs misspeak more than Helen Keller.
May 6th, 2009 at 2:15 pm#19 dogfather,
May 6th, 2009 at 2:15 pmI agree – sometimes they become so full of stupid it just falls out of their mouths. Sometimes they are full of sh!t too and that also just spills out for lack of a larger container.
There is only so much stupidity and sh!t that a body can hold – even a republican one.
ConservativeForProgress Says:
There is nothing wrong with this law. It protects “straights” too. If a gang of gay men were to attack someone because he was straight, for example, that too would be considered a “hate crime.”
May 6th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
Exactly.
May 6th, 2009 at 2:17 pmIt doesn’t say much for the US of A that, in the 21st century, there is still a perceived need to qualify assault or murder.
The Land of Equal Rights? Don’t make me laugh. There is a reason the need for this type of legislation exists and it is because there are still too many people who don’t believe in equality.
May 6th, 2009 at 2:17 pmThat is one of most nonsensical things I have every heard. Even for him.
May 6th, 2009 at 2:19 pmMax Anax junius -1 Says:
But I’m still confused why Congress thinks this angle works.
My two Senators refuse to address this subject…
… So I refuse to vote for them.
May 6th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
_________
I wager it’s because many members of Congress gave tacit or explicit approval for the torture practices and none of them want this dirty secret revealed.
May 6th, 2009 at 2:19 pmThis guy is way scarier than the other Stephen King.
May 6th, 2009 at 2:19 pmRight wingers cling to their bigotry like it was a gun or a bible
May 6th, 2009 at 2:22 pmAnother example of religion turning brains into mush.
May 6th, 2009 at 2:23 pmIs there a gay-beaters lobby?
May 6th, 2009 at 2:24 pmRantingTommy Says:
Right wingers cling to their bigotry like it was a gun or a bible
May 6th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
_________
I fear what will happen if anyone ever figures out a way to combine the two.
May 6th, 2009 at 2:35 pmHmmmmm, I guess he just exposed the bigot’s playbook…if discrimination against their favored victims is suddenly done away with, they’ll shift their focus to another group to discriminate against…
May 6th, 2009 at 2:37 pmIs King seriously competing with Bachmann for the “most stupid” crown? I have heard a lot of bizarre rationale for justifying bigotry, but this one’s new. Of course the idea that victimizers are going to victimize somebody else if they can’t commit a crime against somebody protected by hate crime legislation is just absurd. I mean, can you imagine the following scenario?
*************************************************************
FIRST WHITE GUY: The black folk around here are too uppity. We need to lynch a couple of them so the rest of them know their place.
SECOND WHITE GUY: Uh…we can’t do that. Black people are protected by hate crime laws.
FIRST WHITE GUY: D*mn that tyrannical and Orwellian legislation! OK, if we can’t lynch any black guys, let’s go lynch a couple of white guys.
*************************************************************
In the first place, hate crime laws don’t create any “sacred cows”. Yes, it’s a hate crime to commit a crime against a black person because of his race. It’s also a hate crime to commit a crime against a white person because of his race. Whites can be victims of hate crimes as well as blacks. Straight people can be victims of hate crimes as well as gays. EVERY ONE of us could potentially be a victim of a crime because of our color, race, sexual orientation, gender, religion, or ethnic origin — not just minorities.
And in the second place — it’s already a hate crime to victimize someone because of their race. So if there have been a lot instances where victimizers pick on members of their own race because members of a different race are off-limits, surely King would provide us with examples. If he can’t, then he’s got nothing and should just STFU.
May 6th, 2009 at 2:37 pmIt would seem logical to assume that anyone opposing a hate crimes bill has committed, or intends to commit, crimes that could be prosecuted under said law.
May 6th, 2009 at 2:38 pmMr. King, you’ve really done it now! You made missmolly say “STFU”!
Not that you didn’t deserve it, but, do you know how badly you must have behaved to make her say that?! Silly, silly man.
May 6th, 2009 at 2:46 pmI guess this dufus thinks enacting hate crime legislation will turn us all into Hindus.
May 6th, 2009 at 2:50 pmYet another moron that the good people of Iowa need to replace in the next election. And the Republicans woder why it is that no one is listening to them.
May 6th, 2009 at 2:51 pmIs tortured logic a hate crime?
May 6th, 2009 at 2:53 pmSo is King arguing for a more inclusive Republican Party? Is he making an argument for equality for all?
May 6th, 2009 at 2:54 pmOh please, the reason they hate the law is because (they feel) it threatens their ability to hate gays. Besides, the law doesn’t really “protect” anyone. It mostly just allows for federal resources to get involved in a crime where the locals might not thoroughly investigate due to (surprise!) being bigots.
May 6th, 2009 at 3:09 pmOK, Mr. King, by your logic there should be no special protection for children from sexual predators because the predator would thus be inclined to seek out adult victims instead.
Are you really this stupid? Or are you this manipulative?
May 6th, 2009 at 3:13 pm“If” they’re one of God’s children…
Uh, huh.
May 6th, 2009 at 3:20 pmThomm Hartman had this a$$hat on his show the other day and made mincemeat out of him. I love the way Thomm does it too. He makes these people sound like the fools they are, but he does it in a very polite way. Kind of like Rachael Maddow does.
May 6th, 2009 at 3:21 pmKing has been busy spreading all kinds of crap.
http://mediamatters.org/research/200905060016
May 6th, 2009 at 3:23 pm# 62 Did you miss the rush comment that the repubs should “teach” not be listening to the American public. That would be teach to hate everyone that does not agree with you. Good grief what would repubs do without people to hate ?
May 6th, 2009 at 3:34 pmIt’s a shame when the Anti-Defacation League is writing bills for Congress. I’m agnostic, but I agree about this being an anti-Christian bill: remember that Jewish groups like the Anti-Defacation League have declared the New Testament “anti-Semitic!”
Evangelical lovers of Israel would never believe that our government could consider them anti-Semitic. Yet the U.S. State Department’s new “Department of Global Anti-Semitism” now defines anti-Semitism in a way that makes Bible-believing Christians into anti-Semites. Here’s how:
The State Department’s 40-page Report on Global Anti-Semitism cites a recent example of “anti-Semitism” in Poland. “…the pastor of St. Brigid Church in Gdansk told parishioners during services that Jews killed Jesus and the prophets.” (p.22) What’s wrong with that? According to Jewish leadership: plenty. Jewish leaders say it was this millennia-old accusation that ultimately led to the Holocaust: to millions of Jewish “Christ killers” being herded into the prison camps and gas chambers of Auschwitz, Dachau, etc. “You can’t get any more anti-Semitic than that!” they protest.
IS THE NEW TESTAMENT “HATE LITERATURE?”
May 6th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
I love his logic. We shouldn’t patrol crime-ridden neighborhoods because that might drive the criminals into the quiet, rich suburbs? How else to read this? “If we protect those perverted gays, criminals might be forced to come after us normal people instead!” Nice.
May 6th, 2009 at 3:56 pmmaasanova Says:
IS THE NEW TESTAMENT “HATE LITERATURE?”
May 6th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
_____________
No. Your post, on the other hand, most certainly is.
May 6th, 2009 at 4:01 pmThe thing that these republican’ts don’t get through their heads is that these hate crimes are effectively domestic terrorism, and therefore should be punished more severely than a standard crime.
If an angry person beats up 10 people at random, then he’s committed assault ten times. If the same person beats up 10 jews, then he is terrorizing the jewish community.
People need to get out of their racist little minds and disassociate terrorism from turbans and suicide bombers. The purpose of terrorism is to control a group through fear. Hate crimes serve the same purpose, and should share the same fury from the american people.
It’s ironic that the party that points fingers and shrieks “TERRORIST” is the same party that is afraid of prosecuting hate crimes.
May 6th, 2009 at 4:07 pm@Vasagi: it’s also the same group that abhors islamic fundamentalist states, yet quotes biblical passages as legal arguments when trying to prevent same-sex marriages from becoming legal.
May 6th, 2009 at 4:13 pmThe Anti-Defamation League writing bills for Congress doesn’t seem a bit strange for you? Wake up and smell the coffee fools.
The “hate crimes” are only selectively enforced. You don’t hear about the crimes against the blacks by Mexicans. No that’s not a hate crime…nor is it a hate crime when a Jewish student at Georgetown spray paints a swaztika on her own dorm door and terrorizes the entire dorm. No that’s not a hate crime either.
May 6th, 2009 at 4:18 pmas soon as these clowns start trying to include GOD in any of their logic their credibility goes into the red!
May 6th, 2009 at 4:20 pm“claiming it will end religious freedom”
As a Christian, I don’t get this at all. What does hate speech have to do with the free practice of religion, unless you’ve perverted your religion to focus on what other people do in their bedroom and somehow that makes it ok to hurt them or discriminate against them in any way.
May 6th, 2009 at 4:30 pmmaasanova Says:
You don’t hear about the crimes against the blacks by Mexicans. No that’s not a hate crime
No, you don’t hear stories about crimes by blacks against Mexicans – why is that do you suppose?
But, if blacks suddenly DID start to target Mexicans, I’d think it was a hate crime. Wouldn’t you maasanove?
May 6th, 2009 at 4:30 pmOops, sorry maasanova, I mis-read you. You actually said, “You don’t hear about the crimes against the blacks by Mexicans.”
Mexicans are targeting blacks? Do you have a link on that? I hadn’t heard that. But, if Mexicans are targeting blacks then, again, I would say it’s a hate crime, wouldn’t you?
May 6th, 2009 at 4:32 pmMaasanova says:
The Anti-Defamation League writing bills for Congress doesn’t seem a bit strange for you? Wake up and smell the coffee fools.
The “hate crimes” are only selectively enforced. You don’t hear about the crimes against the blacks by Mexicans. No that’s not a hate crime…nor is it a hate crime when a Jewish student at Georgetown spray paints a swaztika on her own dorm door and terrorizes the entire dorm. No that’s not a hate crime either.
Maybe this is why the federal government is writing a bill to define hate crimes? A solid nation-wide definition so that they can be prosecuted consistently, without favortism?
Ya think?
I don’t recall reading anything in there stating that white christians are incapable of creating hate crimes. Maybe that’s why the religious right are shaking about it. Maybe it’s time for some people to start burning their hoods instead of their crosses.
May 6th, 2009 at 4:37 pmApparently our guest doesn’t realize that the Matthew Shepard Act merely adds sexuality/gender to existing legislation that I believe was enacted in 1969. It also drops the stipulation that the victim must be engaged in a Constitutionally protected activity like voting.
May 6th, 2009 at 4:43 pmWere was the Anti-Defacation League when this happened:
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/upshaw-street-carbajal-2228981-short-years
See, all you’re going to do is hear about those crazy anti-Semitic “conspiracy theorists” or crazy right wing extremists from the ADL, but you will never hear about a Mexican on black crime, a Jew on Arab crime, or a minority against a white, or a gay against a straight. It’s all selectively enforced.
May 6th, 2009 at 4:44 pm“It’s all selectively enforced.”
That sure sounds like a good reason to revamp the legislation.
May 6th, 2009 at 4:46 pm“Anti-Semite”? “Conspiracy theorist”?
Sounds like someone’s looking in a mirror.
May 6th, 2009 at 4:49 pmAccording to our guest’s link (which is a news story about one of those Mexican on black crimes he claims are not reported or prosecuted) the guys who committed the crime were charged with a hate-crime. And, since the victim wasn’t Jewish and the law apparently took it’s rightful course, the ADL would have little reason to do much of anything related to this case.
May 6th, 2009 at 4:54 pmThe ADL should not be writing hate crimes legislation if they are only going to grandstand when it comes to crimes involving Jews only. Sounds a bit racist to me. The ADL should not be involved in the US legislative process. Period.
May 6th, 2009 at 5:02 pmI can’t seem to find any reference to the ADL “writing hate crimes legislation”.
May 6th, 2009 at 5:12 pmSo, when I was robbed at gunpoint in Dusseldorf, Germany (Yes, Germany), I guess that was a love crime, right? Any crime committed against another person-regardless of race, creed, sexuality, etc.-is a hate crime. I have never heard of a love crime. That is an oxymoron.
May 6th, 2009 at 5:15 pmNo one is saying that crime is pleasant when committed for all the usual reasons. The semantic games are tired. If the word “hate” is what’s hanging you up,looktothehills, perhaps you could think of it as “bias” crime.
Would you argue, looktothehills, that 9/11 was a crime like any other crime? If you’re going to look at this from the point of view of dead victims, then the victims of 9/11 are no more dead than any other murder victims. If you look at it the offenders and their motives, it’s quite different from your average murder, isn’t it? People who would kill a group of people for belonging to a group as broad as Americans, or gays, or blacks, or whites…that’s not your average murderer.
May 6th, 2009 at 5:39 pmI still can’t find anything to support a contention that the ADL wrote the Matthew Shepard act. I may have missed something but, I’m forced to conclude our guest is making shit up.
May 6th, 2009 at 5:44 pmLooktothehills, you were targeted for robbery probably because you were in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Wouldn’t it be more heinous if someone were to target you for assault because you are a fundamentalist Christian?
May 6th, 2009 at 5:48 pmI have never heard of a love crime. That is an oxymoron.
—
Rent “Endless Love”
Seriously
May 6th, 2009 at 6:27 pmI read this great thing recently about a couple married for like a zillion years. He shot her first then himself. They could not stand to be apart from one another and she was terminal…
I’ve been doing some reading about the ADL. A fascinating group with a long, controversial, history. However, I still can’t find anything about them writing legislation.
May 6th, 2009 at 6:33 pmMr King needs to get back on his meds.
May 6th, 2009 at 8:34 pmIf you want to commit a hate crime against a particular race, gender or sexual orientation, just make sure you torture them so you won’t be prosecuted.
May 6th, 2009 at 9:26 pmHate crimes laws open up a Pandora’s box of moral and ethical issues. I cannot think of too many crimes of passion where hate wasn’t involved, but if the two combatants are of diferent ethnicities the one who kills is guilty of something additional? Sounds strange. Hate is a thought, and thought crimes are suspect on their face.
May 6th, 2009 at 9:59 pmWe have adequate punishments for aggravated assault, murder and mayhem. We really don’t need “hate crimes” laws. They aren’t likely to have deterred something such as the Jenna Six (who targeted an innocent white male student for a savage beating because the black perpetrators were angry and hateful over perceived racist insults made by others).
Some of you have posted about Mexican and black crime. In Southern California there has been a longtime problem of Hispanic on Black and vice versa violence. The Mexican gangs and the Bloods and Crips have targeted each other for years. But we also have a problem with Asian gangs going after Hispanics and each other. None of them were motivated by love.
May 6th, 2009 at 10:06 pmseslichat
May 11th, 2009 at 12:18 amsesli chat
sesli sohbet
seslisohbet