At times I wonder if he can't see through his own mindless repetition, and suffers from the attention span of a gnat...
... or if he's just trying to be annoying.
But then I realize it doesn't really matter, and I move on to things that actually matter.

At this stage, I think everybody has realized what category he is in. I look for any semblance that anybody thinks his reasoning has merit, but I don't see any.

Over and over again, if somebody's opinion even happens to overlap with gar's, a phrase like "I can't believe I am agreeing with gary, but ..." can be seen.

There is extreme irony that he stalks people who ignore him, and then claims a victory when they ignore him.
Probably because that's the only delusional semblance of a victory he can muster in his pathetic existence...

The point remains that a crime is a crime. There are different degrees of crimes, murder, manslaughter, etc.

Do you remember the 2000 election. The NAACP ran an ad on the radio, the got James Byrd's daughter to do the piece. James Byrd was the black man that was beaten to death and then dragged behind the pick-up truck. Byrd's daughter got on the radio and made a statement to the effect:

When George Bush failed to sign the Hate Crime Legislation in Texas, it was like my father was dragged behind that truck all over again.

What a crock. One individual in the case turned state's evidence and was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. The other two individuals were sentenced to death. So tell me, what would hate crime legislation do????? Are we going to sentence the first individual to life without the possiblity of parole with a consecutive term of life??? Or how about the one receiving the death penatly??? Are we going to execute them a second time?????

I have no problems with including so-called hate crimes within motives of crimes, however, to create a separate category for them alone serves no true purpose. Assault is assault, motive should only be used to determine the degree.

dmk

You are missing the point of bias crime legislature.

Hate crimes (also known as bias motivated crimes) occur when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her membership in a certain social group, usually defined by race, religion, sexual orientation, disability, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender, gender identity, or political affiliation.[1] Hate crimes differ from conventional crime because they are not directed simply at an individual, but are meant to cause fear and intimidation in an entire group or class of people.

Well, another classic dodge by Gary, I guess.

Its Repeat 'o' Man


Hate crimes legislation applies to straight people too. Its basis is sexual orientation it is not limited to homosexuality. It is not gay people fault that they are victimized more often then heterosexuals. Perhaps if the hysterical over reaction which is the basis of the above response no longer existed hate crimes legislation would not either. This type of response, which is nonsensical btw, legitimates those who would attack people simply because of their sexual orientation. ..Its is not legislation about thought but rather actions are you suggesting people should not be held accountable for their actions??? . How do we determine hate is the real issue and we have no problem determining it when it comes to race or religious belief and the same standards apply.

For someone who wants the government to legislate morality when it comes to the issue of gay marriage Gary you seem to have an issue with this piece of morals legislation. Your hysterical and repeat yourself way too much you are a dullard actually.

This type of law which is punitive in nature has a long history in the civil law. Hate crimes laws are the criminal equivalent of punitive damages in the civil law. As a person who has practiced the law and as such has an actual knowledge of the way the system works, the watching of it in a courtroom doesn't give anyone the actual real picture by the way, I can say with no hesitation that punitive damages in civil law create a world of misery and are just as personally devestating to the person who has to pay in many instances as an extra time on your sentence often times its worse. In the criminal law as in the civil law this types of 'punitive' sentencing/damages only attach when the person has committed some crime or is found liable under the civil law for some tortious act/omission.

Its also odd that people don't think that this type of law is wrong in the instance of religious belief they concentrate on gay people solely which just exposes their own hypocrisy and weird fascination with gay people.

"They are not directed simply at an individual, but are meant to cause fear and intimidation in an entire group or class of people."


Which is simply an aggravating factor. Which we already had a mechanism in place to deal with.

"Hate crime" legislation is redundant, unesscisary and, IMO, opens up the court system to micro-management driven by the whims and passions of public opinon.

BTW, using that reasoning, you could almost say any type of crime is a "hate crime."

Take rape, for example. I think it "sends a message" to all women that they deserve to be the objects of control and perverse gratification.
More often than not, the rapist bears animosity toward women in general. If he could rape the colletive "woman".. he would. But instead, he picks a victim to project that distain for all women upon.

And if you don't think the rape, of say, a girl on campus doesn't put all the other girls on campus into a state of fear -- and that the rapist doesn't get a charge out of knowing he's scaring the shit out of women in general -- then I've got a bridge for sale in Arizona.

In fact, the rape of any woman is probably going to cause some amount of discomfort and fear in any other woman anywhere who happens to read about it or see a report on T.V.

So, why the hell isn't rape classified as a "hate crime?"

And really (sorry for the string of posts).. if I beat up an old lady and steal her pension money.. aren't I , in a way, "sending a message" to old ladies that they aren't safe?

What about kidnapping.. again, if you don't think any kidnapping report doesn't send waves of fear through parents everywhere... send a message that "your kids aren't safe".. well then, I can take cash or money orders for that bridge. No checks or credit cards, please.

How can rape committed by repeated sex offenders be classified as a hate crime? How can rape be classified as a hate crime when you have young men doing that to elderly women?

Further, Patricia Ireland, who once (or if still) headed the Nat'l Organization for Women (NOW), once said that all sex is rape, even if between a wife and a husband in a bedroom. That can't be classified as a hate crime.

1. The first line aren't hate crimes. They are committed by those who required mental help.

2. The second line is common in a bedroom, for which it is not our concern.

All crime is driven to a degree by mental illness.