|
Suspended for three days seems like a too light punishment. I mean the guy really beat that guy up.
Of course their should be police involvements and a charges laid!
|
On October 29 2011 02:31 TS-Rupbar wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 02:27 Aterons_toss wrote:On October 28 2011 07:42 trainRiderJ wrote:
I hate to break it to you but the police force doesn't have the manpower to be involved in every school fight... This Also is beyond ignorance to say this should be punished with anything else then a few weeks suspension tbh, this kind of shit happens in school... they are kids damn it, unless he was seriously injured or beaten to death or something like that its just a normal "school fight". The fact that some ppl think that someone being gay is reason enough to be defended from bullies more then a geek/small in size/fat..etc kids is just horrible and 20th century imo, being gay is a reason enough for some kid to fight/insult another kid... is bad but look back at your school and think of at least 1 fat/nerdy... w.e kid that got picked on for that reason, its the same here. Bullies gonna bully and its not worse in this case then in any other. Did you actually watch the video? The assault was fucking PLANNED and it wasn't just like he was teasing him. He hit him as hard as he could in the face with his fists, repeatedly. "Bullies gonna bully and its not worse in this case then in any other" is pretty lol worthy in this case.
It is impressive that you can judge the force of someone hits by watching a phone camera video...
It wasn't a planed assault it was most likely the bully and his friends saying : "guys, when X enters the room il hit him and you film.. lololol" which is not something unheard of, the media calls it a "planed assault against a gay" cuz that brings in the viewers... much like the 8-12 years old kids fighting in an MMA style and mostly learning how to fight in the MMA style in that fighting club that was called by BBC " Kids as young as 5 cage fighting".
|
What is really hilarious to me is that there are 2 hot threads on TL right now, both revolving around gay themed news, and both of them have been on South Park, in my opinion in awesome episodes.
I understand that not everyone likes South Park sense of humor, but people should really watch that episodes, and see how far and how absurd this things are.
I don't get why do minority groups make such big deals around such small stuff, especially in America, since that just reinforces the stereotypes (gays/black people being hyper sensitive).
I can bet you there is at least 1 beating each week (captured on phones) in the schools, but it is not talked here because it's just white kids beating on white kids, black kids on black kids etc...
This kid should be appointed to therapy and / or taken from his parents (if they thought him to beat on different people).
|
On October 29 2011 02:54 MrTortoise wrote:
why is the fact hes gay such a big fucking deal you homophobic wankers
seriously if you wernt homophobic you wouldnt care if he was gay or not.
seriously ... how is the fact hes gay making this any worse?
If you say hate crime i will cry, yes its a HATE crime, the guy hates, sexuality is just a footnote.
As for punishing for bias ... id punish you for being such a retard. You think hes hitting him because hes gay or because he has serious issues which have manifested through him deciding that he doesnt like an arbitrary group to channel his rage?
Moreover if he does hate gays, and you think we shuold tolerate gays because its their decision then by the same logic you should tolerate him. Yes you can go into harm arguments ... id just point out that actually if everyone was gay there would be nobody left after 1 generation wheras haters would manage to survive. Haters are useful ... you send them into battle.
We do tolerate assholes. We do it all day every day. We listen to their bullshit, their hate, their idiocy and we sit there absolutely amazed every time one of them rushes through a red light because they're running late for work, not giving a damn that they risk the lives of other human beings that might already have momentum into the perpendicular green light.
But, we don't go around punishing them until they've actually DONE SOMETHING. This is called freedom of speech.
|
On October 29 2011 02:58 Aterons_toss wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 02:31 TS-Rupbar wrote:On October 29 2011 02:27 Aterons_toss wrote:On October 28 2011 07:42 trainRiderJ wrote:
I hate to break it to you but the police force doesn't have the manpower to be involved in every school fight... This Also is beyond ignorance to say this should be punished with anything else then a few weeks suspension tbh, this kind of shit happens in school... they are kids damn it, unless he was seriously injured or beaten to death or something like that its just a normal "school fight". The fact that some ppl think that someone being gay is reason enough to be defended from bullies more then a geek/small in size/fat..etc kids is just horrible and 20th century imo, being gay is a reason enough for some kid to fight/insult another kid... is bad but look back at your school and think of at least 1 fat/nerdy... w.e kid that got picked on for that reason, its the same here. Bullies gonna bully and its not worse in this case then in any other. Did you actually watch the video? The assault was fucking PLANNED and it wasn't just like he was teasing him. He hit him as hard as he could in the face with his fists, repeatedly. "Bullies gonna bully and its not worse in this case then in any other" is pretty lol worthy in this case. It is impressive that you can judge the force of someone hits by watching a phone camera video... It wasn't a planed assault it was most likely the bully and his friends saying : "guys, when X enters the room il hit him and you film.. lololol" which is not something unheard of, the media calls it a "planed assault against a gay" cuz that brings in the viewers... much like the 8-12 years old kids fighting in an MMA style and mostly learning how to fight in the MMA style in that fighting club that was called by BBC " Kids as young as 5 cage fighting".
Assault and battery. Doing it because he's gay makes it a felony.
Doesn't matter how hard the hits were. Doesn't matter how much sensationalism there is in this, you can see the fucking video. The police not only have the man power, but they have all of the 11 minutes this case would take to solve.
Throw the kid in jail for a couple years and show him what the lifers think of gay sex.
p.s. they think it's awesome.
|
On October 29 2011 03:05 Chargelot wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 02:58 Aterons_toss wrote:On October 29 2011 02:31 TS-Rupbar wrote:On October 29 2011 02:27 Aterons_toss wrote:On October 28 2011 07:42 trainRiderJ wrote:
I hate to break it to you but the police force doesn't have the manpower to be involved in every school fight... This Also is beyond ignorance to say this should be punished with anything else then a few weeks suspension tbh, this kind of shit happens in school... they are kids damn it, unless he was seriously injured or beaten to death or something like that its just a normal "school fight". The fact that some ppl think that someone being gay is reason enough to be defended from bullies more then a geek/small in size/fat..etc kids is just horrible and 20th century imo, being gay is a reason enough for some kid to fight/insult another kid... is bad but look back at your school and think of at least 1 fat/nerdy... w.e kid that got picked on for that reason, its the same here. Bullies gonna bully and its not worse in this case then in any other. Did you actually watch the video? The assault was fucking PLANNED and it wasn't just like he was teasing him. He hit him as hard as he could in the face with his fists, repeatedly. "Bullies gonna bully and its not worse in this case then in any other" is pretty lol worthy in this case. It is impressive that you can judge the force of someone hits by watching a phone camera video... It wasn't a planed assault it was most likely the bully and his friends saying : "guys, when X enters the room il hit him and you film.. lololol" which is not something unheard of, the media calls it a "planed assault against a gay" cuz that brings in the viewers... much like the 8-12 years old kids fighting in an MMA style and mostly learning how to fight in the MMA style in that fighting club that was called by BBC " Kids as young as 5 cage fighting". Assault and battery. Doing it because he's gay makes it a felony. Doesn't matter how hard the hits were. Doesn't matter how much sensationalism there is in this, you can see the fucking video. The police not only have the man power, but they have all of the 11 minutes this case would take to solve. Throw the kid in jail for a couple years and show him what the lifers think of gay sex. p.s. they think it's awesome.
Again, example of punishing someone more due to victim status, punish the crime for what the crime is, not who the crime was done to
|
Considering every administrator at every school is dumb, I'm not surprised by the punishment and I wouldn't expect anything more severe. It's definitely a hate crime though so the family might be able to press charges against whoever did this...I would sue the school too for being so worthless.
|
Guy should be 100% arrested and charged. Why is this even a question? Do the laws not apply when you are in school? If you murder someone in the classroom, do you just get expelled?
|
the world will never change, this stuff will always happen
|
On October 29 2011 02:45 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 02:34 drshdwpuppet wrote:On October 29 2011 02:25 WhiteDog wrote:On October 29 2011 02:17 drshdwpuppet wrote:On October 29 2011 02:11 WhiteDog wrote:On October 29 2011 02:06 drshdwpuppet wrote:On October 29 2011 02:04 WhiteDog wrote:On October 29 2011 02:02 drshdwpuppet wrote:On October 29 2011 01:59 WhiteDog wrote:On October 29 2011 01:50 drshdwpuppet wrote:
[quote]
The question is "do I think he should be punished more harshly" I answered with "yes, because it is the law. Personally, I also think that because this".
I am gay, I have been the victim of bullying, assault, rape etc. So yes, this is a hot topic issue for me because I am fairly active in spreading the word, helping other gay youth, being an advocate for a group that I belong to. I think the reason behind any crime is important in determining the course of action to correct and prevent. The Arabic population being assaulted etc because they are Arabic IS ALSO A BIAS MOTIVATED CRIME AND SHOULD ALSO BE DEALT WITH MORE HARSHLY THAN A NON BIAS MOTIVATED CRIME. This topic isn't about a kid being beaten up because he is arab. I have seen that happen to, and it should also be dealt with more harshly. All crime are BIAS MOTIVATED... What other reason is there to hit a young kid ? The fact that you are gay and suffered because of it is not relevant to the actual case. I know it's hard, I had my own suffering too, but it doesn't mean some crime should be more punished than others just because they are related to my own suffering in any way. We are using a legal definition. All crimes are not Bias motivated. A bias motivated crime in the united states is defined as a crime motivated by enmity or animus against a protected class. I'm just going to ignore the suffering bit, because you are right, it isnt really relevant. And on what criteria does you consider a certain class in need to be "protected" or not ? I will answer to my own question : the power that this very class has on the media and the public sphere. I consider young kids as a whole in need to be protected, not just gay kids. I use the criteria that a court would, THE LEGAL DEFINITION. Namely race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, gender, and disability with the addition of sexual orientation and gender identity in 2009 with the Matthew Shepard act. So no, you did not answer your own question, don't presume to be able to answer what my criteria are in anything thank you. Yes I did respond to my question, why did they decide to define as protected "race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, gender, disability with the addition of sexual orientation and gender identity" in the LEGAL DEFINITION ? Because, as I said, there were communities behind those laws. It doesn't care what the law says if it's dumb in my opinion. And you brilliantly evaded my last sentence. The fact is : hitting a kid, in any way, is a crime, and if you punish more when a gay kid is punished rather than any other kid, then the only thing you are saying is that the gay kid is more important to the community than the other kid, which is pretty pathetic. nooooooooooo I am not saying he is more important to the community. I am saying that the legal definition that this crime would fall under if brought to a criminal court could possibly be that of hate crime (takes a lot to prove motivation btw, so it isnt even remotely likely) because of the legal definition of it. I have made no personal value judgements in that argument at all. I have made a legal argument for why he should be punished more harshly. Instead of using hyperbole and emotions, how about you make an argument using legal definitions, scientific articles, journal studies etc. And the reason sexual orientation was added to the list was because of the case of Matthew Shepard. Matthew was entrapped, beaten, tortured, assaulted, kidnapped and tied to a fence and left to die because he was gay. At the time, it couldn't be tried as a bias motivated crime, only as a murder. Not because of media portrayal, not because of bias spin, not because of CNN. Because of a horrific and terrible crime against a human being on the grounds of an immutable property of his life. My arguments are all based on logic. You are the one who used emotion since the beginning, stating that you were gay, that you had suffered, and now saying that it is all legal. A "legal" argument mean nothing, in sociology the laws are the historic expression of social facts : they represent the society at a certain point in her history. The reason the sexual orientation was added to the list was because a certain number of people decided to defend the idea that the Matthew Shepard was more than a horrible crime. If Matthew Shepard was not gay but suffered the same exact thing, do you think that his offender should have been punished less ? That's what you are saying since the beginning and I do not agree : it is wrong in every possible way. Yes, I used emotional arguments by saying I had suffered. I retract that statement because it has no relevance to this discussion. Everything else has been a legal argument. And this isn't even kind of a sociology thought experiment. It is a legal question and one that has a definitive answer based on the foundations of law and order in the United States as defined by our legal code and Supreme Court rulings. The reason sexual orientation was added to the list of protected characteristics is because, through senate and house action, which by extension is through action of voting by proxy of the American people, we decided to add it. It was democratic. Theoretically, the majority of the American people wanted it to be, so it was. (I realize that this is not always how it works in America, but from a legal standpoint, that is exactly how it works). The reason the crime against Matthew Shepard was particularly heinous is the proven motivation for the actions. Not the action itself, if that happened to another person, it would be a grievous crime for sure. Legally, we make a distinction between crimes done for certain reasons. I am not making a social argument, nor am I prepared to defend my opinion on the addition of sexual orientation to the list for you. I do not think that the crime should be punished more because he is gay. Let me repeat. I do not think that the crime should be punished more because he is gay.I think the crime should be punished more because the demonstrable bias that motivated the assault is against federal laws protecting us from bias motivated crimes in Title 18 U.S.C. § 245. First, you don't answer to my question which is : do you think that if Matthew Shepard would have faced the exact same torture but with no "demonstrable bias" then the assault should not be punished as heavily ? Second, don't try to argue that the majority of the American people wanted that, because it's silly. I will not even try to make you consider the fact that there are 40% of non voters in america, or that making a law to respond to a specific case in the media is just giving an emotional response to a certain event. Also what the "majority" want doesn't mean it's instantly a good thing. Theoretically, I can build a space shuttle.
The case of matthew shepard was not tried as a hate crime because at the time, sexual orientation was not on the list of protected characteristics. So for the time, I think that the sentence should have been the same, non hate crime based sentence for both cases.
If it were to happen today, in the legal framework that we have as of right now, then yes, I believe that the punishment should not carry the legally prescribed sentence that a hate crime carries because it wont be a hate crime.
The argument I made was from a lawmaking standpoint, that in the American system, what is prescribed into law is supposed to be the vote by proxy of the American people. Obviously it doesnt work that way in reality, but legally, we have to treat it that way.
On October 29 2011 02:42 Bibdy wrote:
So, if the law says it, it's the right thing to do? You realize that a lot of states don't grant gay marriage certificates because the law says it's only between a man and a woman, yes? Laws can be wrong, and it's our duty to evolve them to fit with our current model of an ideal society. Right now, laws which discriminate, or give preferential treatment, are not helping the solve the problem of discrimination. For example, hiring quotas, which force companies to go around hiring people from different ethnic backgrounds simply to avoid the conversation of racial discrimination and potential lawsuits, rather than hiring the individuals on their own merits, isn't helping.
The law does not answer questions of right and wrong, and nowhere here have I claimed it to do so. And yes, I do, so painfully realize that I cannot marry in most states. What follows is your opinion, and is completely and totally irrelevant to my argument. You think the laws aren't helping? That is your prerogative, there are plenty of laws that aren't working. But now you are making an argument about the efficacy of our legal precedent in cases like this, which I am not prepared to discuss.
|
On October 29 2011 03:08 Blasterion wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 03:05 Chargelot wrote:On October 29 2011 02:58 Aterons_toss wrote:On October 29 2011 02:31 TS-Rupbar wrote:On October 29 2011 02:27 Aterons_toss wrote:On October 28 2011 07:42 trainRiderJ wrote:
I hate to break it to you but the police force doesn't have the manpower to be involved in every school fight... This Also is beyond ignorance to say this should be punished with anything else then a few weeks suspension tbh, this kind of shit happens in school... they are kids damn it, unless he was seriously injured or beaten to death or something like that its just a normal "school fight". The fact that some ppl think that someone being gay is reason enough to be defended from bullies more then a geek/small in size/fat..etc kids is just horrible and 20th century imo, being gay is a reason enough for some kid to fight/insult another kid... is bad but look back at your school and think of at least 1 fat/nerdy... w.e kid that got picked on for that reason, its the same here. Bullies gonna bully and its not worse in this case then in any other. Did you actually watch the video? The assault was fucking PLANNED and it wasn't just like he was teasing him. He hit him as hard as he could in the face with his fists, repeatedly. "Bullies gonna bully and its not worse in this case then in any other" is pretty lol worthy in this case. It is impressive that you can judge the force of someone hits by watching a phone camera video... It wasn't a planed assault it was most likely the bully and his friends saying : "guys, when X enters the room il hit him and you film.. lololol" which is not something unheard of, the media calls it a "planed assault against a gay" cuz that brings in the viewers... much like the 8-12 years old kids fighting in an MMA style and mostly learning how to fight in the MMA style in that fighting club that was called by BBC " Kids as young as 5 cage fighting". Assault and battery. Doing it because he's gay makes it a felony. Doesn't matter how hard the hits were. Doesn't matter how much sensationalism there is in this, you can see the fucking video. The police not only have the man power, but they have all of the 11 minutes this case would take to solve. Throw the kid in jail for a couple years and show him what the lifers think of gay sex. p.s. they think it's awesome. Again, example of punishing someone due to victim status, punish the crime for what the crime is, not who the crime was done to
It's called a hate crime.
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.
You're welcome to inspect the US Code, as well as the 50 state codes, to see the exact penalties and circumstances.
|
Charges should be pressed, unacceptable, plain and simple, the kid who was beaten did absolutely nothing wrong. This isnt some little fight, its assault. Its a hate crime, a felony punishable by law.
|
On October 29 2011 03:12 drshdwpuppet wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 02:45 WhiteDog wrote:On October 29 2011 02:34 drshdwpuppet wrote:On October 29 2011 02:25 WhiteDog wrote:On October 29 2011 02:17 drshdwpuppet wrote:On October 29 2011 02:11 WhiteDog wrote:On October 29 2011 02:06 drshdwpuppet wrote:On October 29 2011 02:04 WhiteDog wrote:On October 29 2011 02:02 drshdwpuppet wrote:On October 29 2011 01:59 WhiteDog wrote:
[quote]
All crime are BIAS MOTIVATED... What other reason is there to hit a young kid ?
The fact that you are gay and suffered because of it is not relevant to the actual case. I know it's hard, I had my own suffering too, but it doesn't mean some crime should be more punished than others just because they are related to my own suffering in any way. We are using a legal definition. All crimes are not Bias motivated. A bias motivated crime in the united states is defined as a crime motivated by enmity or animus against a protected class. I'm just going to ignore the suffering bit, because you are right, it isnt really relevant. And on what criteria does you consider a certain class in need to be "protected" or not ? I will answer to my own question : the power that this very class has on the media and the public sphere. I consider young kids as a whole in need to be protected, not just gay kids. I use the criteria that a court would, THE LEGAL DEFINITION. Namely race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, gender, and disability with the addition of sexual orientation and gender identity in 2009 with the Matthew Shepard act. So no, you did not answer your own question, don't presume to be able to answer what my criteria are in anything thank you. Yes I did respond to my question, why did they decide to define as protected "race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, gender, disability with the addition of sexual orientation and gender identity" in the LEGAL DEFINITION ? Because, as I said, there were communities behind those laws. It doesn't care what the law says if it's dumb in my opinion. And you brilliantly evaded my last sentence. The fact is : hitting a kid, in any way, is a crime, and if you punish more when a gay kid is punished rather than any other kid, then the only thing you are saying is that the gay kid is more important to the community than the other kid, which is pretty pathetic. nooooooooooo I am not saying he is more important to the community. I am saying that the legal definition that this crime would fall under if brought to a criminal court could possibly be that of hate crime (takes a lot to prove motivation btw, so it isnt even remotely likely) because of the legal definition of it. I have made no personal value judgements in that argument at all. I have made a legal argument for why he should be punished more harshly. Instead of using hyperbole and emotions, how about you make an argument using legal definitions, scientific articles, journal studies etc. And the reason sexual orientation was added to the list was because of the case of Matthew Shepard. Matthew was entrapped, beaten, tortured, assaulted, kidnapped and tied to a fence and left to die because he was gay. At the time, it couldn't be tried as a bias motivated crime, only as a murder. Not because of media portrayal, not because of bias spin, not because of CNN. Because of a horrific and terrible crime against a human being on the grounds of an immutable property of his life. My arguments are all based on logic. You are the one who used emotion since the beginning, stating that you were gay, that you had suffered, and now saying that it is all legal. A "legal" argument mean nothing, in sociology the laws are the historic expression of social facts : they represent the society at a certain point in her history. The reason the sexual orientation was added to the list was because a certain number of people decided to defend the idea that the Matthew Shepard was more than a horrible crime. If Matthew Shepard was not gay but suffered the same exact thing, do you think that his offender should have been punished less ? That's what you are saying since the beginning and I do not agree : it is wrong in every possible way. Yes, I used emotional arguments by saying I had suffered. I retract that statement because it has no relevance to this discussion. Everything else has been a legal argument. And this isn't even kind of a sociology thought experiment. It is a legal question and one that has a definitive answer based on the foundations of law and order in the United States as defined by our legal code and Supreme Court rulings. The reason sexual orientation was added to the list of protected characteristics is because, through senate and house action, which by extension is through action of voting by proxy of the American people, we decided to add it. It was democratic. Theoretically, the majority of the American people wanted it to be, so it was. (I realize that this is not always how it works in America, but from a legal standpoint, that is exactly how it works). The reason the crime against Matthew Shepard was particularly heinous is the proven motivation for the actions. Not the action itself, if that happened to another person, it would be a grievous crime for sure. Legally, we make a distinction between crimes done for certain reasons. I am not making a social argument, nor am I prepared to defend my opinion on the addition of sexual orientation to the list for you. I do not think that the crime should be punished more because he is gay. Let me repeat. I do not think that the crime should be punished more because he is gay.I think the crime should be punished more because the demonstrable bias that motivated the assault is against federal laws protecting us from bias motivated crimes in Title 18 U.S.C. § 245. First, you don't answer to my question which is : do you think that if Matthew Shepard would have faced the exact same torture but with no "demonstrable bias" then the assault should not be punished as heavily ? Second, don't try to argue that the majority of the American people wanted that, because it's silly. I will not even try to make you consider the fact that there are 40% of non voters in america, or that making a law to respond to a specific case in the media is just giving an emotional response to a certain event. Also what the "majority" want doesn't mean it's instantly a good thing. Theoretically, I can build a space shuttle. The case of matthew shepard was not tried as a hate crime because at the time, sexual orientation was not on the list of protected characteristics. So for the time, I think that the sentence should have been the same, non hate crime based sentence for both cases. If it were to happen today, in the legal framework that we have as of right now, then yes, I believe that the punishment should not carry the legally prescribed sentence that a hate crime carries because it wont be a hate crime. The argument I made was from a lawmaking standpoint, that in the American system, what is prescribed into law is supposed to be the vote by proxy of the American people. Obviously it doesnt work that way in reality, but legally, we have to treat it that way. Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 02:42 Bibdy wrote:
So, if the law says it, it's the right thing to do? You realize that a lot of states don't grant gay marriage certificates because the law says it's only between a man and a woman, yes? Laws can be wrong, and it's our duty to evolve them to fit with our current model of an ideal society. Right now, laws which discriminate, or give preferential treatment, are not helping the solve the problem of discrimination. For example, hiring quotas, which force companies to go around hiring people from different ethnic backgrounds simply to avoid the conversation of racial discrimination and potential lawsuits, rather than hiring the individuals on their own merits, isn't helping. The law does not answer questions of right and wrong, and nowhere here have I claimed it to do so. And yes, I do, so painfully realize that I cannot marry in most states. What follows is your opinion, and is completely and totally irrelevant to my argument. You think the laws aren't helping? That is your prerogative, there are plenty of laws that aren't working. But now you are making an argument about the efficacy of our legal precedent in cases like this, which I am not prepared to discuss.
Stop with your double standard omg... "The law does not answer questions of right and wrong" ; so it's okay if a the law says that you should, as a gay, stay in the back of a bus and not in the front, then nothing should be said about it.
You are reducing the subject of the discussion. Nobody is talking about the legal side of the situation but about what should or should not be done.
|
They can sue the school or the individual student in question. The video I saw didnt seem conclusive, it was all blurred out. Seems odd that any fight would only be punished by 3-day suspension if it was completely unprovoked.
Also, I dont think the OP watched the whole video. Later on they say that criminal charges are being pursued.
|
On October 29 2011 03:12 drshdwpuppet wrote:
The law does not answer questions of right and wrong, and nowhere here have I claimed it to do so. And yes, I do, so painfully realize that I cannot marry in most states. What follows is your opinion, and is completely and totally irrelevant to my argument. You think the laws aren't helping? That is your prerogative, there are plenty of laws that aren't working. But now you are making an argument about the efficacy of our legal precedent in cases like this, which I am not prepared to discuss.
So what is all that discusion for? If it's not about discusing the legal case, we should leave this to the court and forget.
|
On October 29 2011 03:15 Chargelot wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 03:08 Blasterion wrote:On October 29 2011 03:05 Chargelot wrote:On October 29 2011 02:58 Aterons_toss wrote:On October 29 2011 02:31 TS-Rupbar wrote:On October 29 2011 02:27 Aterons_toss wrote:On October 28 2011 07:42 trainRiderJ wrote:
I hate to break it to you but the police force doesn't have the manpower to be involved in every school fight... This Also is beyond ignorance to say this should be punished with anything else then a few weeks suspension tbh, this kind of shit happens in school... they are kids damn it, unless he was seriously injured or beaten to death or something like that its just a normal "school fight". The fact that some ppl think that someone being gay is reason enough to be defended from bullies more then a geek/small in size/fat..etc kids is just horrible and 20th century imo, being gay is a reason enough for some kid to fight/insult another kid... is bad but look back at your school and think of at least 1 fat/nerdy... w.e kid that got picked on for that reason, its the same here. Bullies gonna bully and its not worse in this case then in any other. Did you actually watch the video? The assault was fucking PLANNED and it wasn't just like he was teasing him. He hit him as hard as he could in the face with his fists, repeatedly. "Bullies gonna bully and its not worse in this case then in any other" is pretty lol worthy in this case. It is impressive that you can judge the force of someone hits by watching a phone camera video... It wasn't a planed assault it was most likely the bully and his friends saying : "guys, when X enters the room il hit him and you film.. lololol" which is not something unheard of, the media calls it a "planed assault against a gay" cuz that brings in the viewers... much like the 8-12 years old kids fighting in an MMA style and mostly learning how to fight in the MMA style in that fighting club that was called by BBC " Kids as young as 5 cage fighting". Assault and battery. Doing it because he's gay makes it a felony. Doesn't matter how hard the hits were. Doesn't matter how much sensationalism there is in this, you can see the fucking video. The police not only have the man power, but they have all of the 11 minutes this case would take to solve. Throw the kid in jail for a couple years and show him what the lifers think of gay sex. p.s. they think it's awesome. Again, example of punishing someone due to victim status, punish the crime for what the crime is, not who the crime was done to It's called a hate crime. Show nested quote +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. You're welcome to inspect the US Code, as well as the 50 state codes, to see the exact penalties and circumstances.
On a logical level though, how does harming a human with ill intent, be a lesser crime than the harm a human of "special status" with ill intent? or are you otherwise intending to say that these special groups are fundementally different from other "normal" humans and should be judged as such?
|
On October 29 2011 03:04 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 02:54 MrTortoise wrote:
why is the fact hes gay such a big fucking deal you homophobic wankers
seriously if you wernt homophobic you wouldnt care if he was gay or not.
seriously ... how is the fact hes gay making this any worse?
If you say hate crime i will cry, yes its a HATE crime, the guy hates, sexuality is just a footnote.
As for punishing for bias ... id punish you for being such a retard. You think hes hitting him because hes gay or because he has serious issues which have manifested through him deciding that he doesnt like an arbitrary group to channel his rage?
Moreover if he does hate gays, and you think we shuold tolerate gays because its their decision then by the same logic you should tolerate him. Yes you can go into harm arguments ... id just point out that actually if everyone was gay there would be nobody left after 1 generation wheras haters would manage to survive. Haters are useful ... you send them into battle.
We do tolerate assholes. We do it all day every day. We listen to their bullshit, their hate, their idiocy and we sit there absolutely amazed every time one of them rushes through a red light because they're running late for work, not giving a damn that they risk the lives of other human beings that might already have momentum into the perpendicular green light. But, we don't go around punishing them until they've actually DONE SOMETHING. This is called freedom of speech.
ok so why are you punishing them ... what are your goals?
I don't just punish people for the sake of it ... I'm certainly not saying dont punish people.
How is 2/3 days suspension . expelling him / prison going to actually help the situation and stop it happening again?
What i am saying is that most people seem to be so stupid that they cant see teat their punishment is just as bad and selfish as the original crime.
I got a red light ticket the other day ... i was next to a bus on the inside lane .. i couldnt see the lights and i moved forward both meters in the traffic. Thats £60 fine and 3 points for moving at about 4mph over a distance of 3 meters ... nonsense. Wheras there are a set of lights down the road from me that have a pedestrian crossing 10m down the road from them on a seperate set of lights. People who do not know the road see the pedestrian crossing go green and set off. Problem is that the other road is busy with lots of busses ... i have seen a bus side swipe a car there ... not pretty ... Its a traffic light trap. The point being that the rules dont always work even though they seem totally sensible. People would give the poor fucker no sympathy as he jumped a red light.
|
People are fixating on victim status when that is only half the picture. If a man assaults somebody it is assault. If a man assaults a gay man it is assault. If a man assaults a gay man BECAUSE he is gay then it is a hate crime. Motivation has ALWAYS been a consideration in criminal cases and this is no different. This is why we differentiate between first degree murder, second degree murder, voluntary manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter. We as a society believe that even though the same action and result could fall under any of these categories, the intent of the individual has bearing on what punishment is deserved. This same logic is used to set apart hate crimes for more severe punishment.
|
On October 29 2011 03:18 Blasterion wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2011 03:15 Chargelot wrote:On October 29 2011 03:08 Blasterion wrote:On October 29 2011 03:05 Chargelot wrote:On October 29 2011 02:58 Aterons_toss wrote:On October 29 2011 02:31 TS-Rupbar wrote:On October 29 2011 02:27 Aterons_toss wrote:On October 28 2011 07:42 trainRiderJ wrote:
I hate to break it to you but the police force doesn't have the manpower to be involved in every school fight... This Also is beyond ignorance to say this should be punished with anything else then a few weeks suspension tbh, this kind of shit happens in school... they are kids damn it, unless he was seriously injured or beaten to death or something like that its just a normal "school fight". The fact that some ppl think that someone being gay is reason enough to be defended from bullies more then a geek/small in size/fat..etc kids is just horrible and 20th century imo, being gay is a reason enough for some kid to fight/insult another kid... is bad but look back at your school and think of at least 1 fat/nerdy... w.e kid that got picked on for that reason, its the same here. Bullies gonna bully and its not worse in this case then in any other. Did you actually watch the video? The assault was fucking PLANNED and it wasn't just like he was teasing him. He hit him as hard as he could in the face with his fists, repeatedly. "Bullies gonna bully and its not worse in this case then in any other" is pretty lol worthy in this case. It is impressive that you can judge the force of someone hits by watching a phone camera video... It wasn't a planed assault it was most likely the bully and his friends saying : "guys, when X enters the room il hit him and you film.. lololol" which is not something unheard of, the media calls it a "planed assault against a gay" cuz that brings in the viewers... much like the 8-12 years old kids fighting in an MMA style and mostly learning how to fight in the MMA style in that fighting club that was called by BBC " Kids as young as 5 cage fighting". Assault and battery. Doing it because he's gay makes it a felony. Doesn't matter how hard the hits were. Doesn't matter how much sensationalism there is in this, you can see the fucking video. The police not only have the man power, but they have all of the 11 minutes this case would take to solve. Throw the kid in jail for a couple years and show him what the lifers think of gay sex. p.s. they think it's awesome. Again, example of punishing someone due to victim status, punish the crime for what the crime is, not who the crime was done to It's called a hate crime. 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. You're welcome to inspect the US Code, as well as the 50 state codes, to see the exact penalties and circumstances. On a logical level though, how does harming a human with ill intent, be a lesser crime than the harm a human of "special status" with ill intent? or are you otherwise intending to say that these special groups are fundementally different from other "normal" humans and should be judged as such?
Imo motives matter, it's far worse beating someone up because he is gay than it is to beat up a gay kid because he sits on your chair or whatever -.- neither is right but one is definitely worse than the other.
|
On October 29 2011 03:23 Velocirapture wrote:
People are fixating on victim status when that is only half the picture. If a man assaults somebody it is assault. If a man assaults a gay man it is assault. If a man assaults a gay man BECAUSE he is gay then it is a hate crime. Motivation has ALWAYS been a consideration in criminal cases and this is no different. This is why we differentiate between first degree murder, second degree murder, voluntary manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter. We as a society believe that even though the same action and result could fall under any of these categories, the intent of the individual has bearing on what punishment is deserved. This same logic is used to set apart hate crimes for more severe punishment.
Thank you for better iteration of what I been meaning to say for a long time, english isn't my first language so I guess I couldn't convey it as well as you could to our fellow forum browsers
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
