- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: South Carolina likely to remain one of only two states without hate crime laws
Posted on 4/29/26 at 12:36 pm to SallysHuman
Posted on 4/29/26 at 12:36 pm to SallysHuman
quote:This is what you posted:
Different crimes or different characteristics?
Holy shite is right- you’re conflating.
quote:Again, HOLY shite! That's the whole point of different punishments for different crimes.
So... punishing a criminal harsher because of how other criminally minded people may potentially act in the future?
Sounds good, doesn’t work. Actually, doesn’t even sound good.
Different punishments for different crimes is aimed at punishing a criminal harsher because of how other criminally minded people may potentially act in the future.
1
Posted on 4/29/26 at 12:39 pm to Salviati
quote:
Different punishments for different crimes is
.. is not the same as punishing differences based on characteristics.
Posted on 4/29/26 at 12:42 pm to SallysHuman
quote:Do I really have to repeat everything that you said back to you?
Are you functionally retarded?
WHAT separation preceded “hate crimes”?
There is no separation.
Okay, remember your post:
quote:Then I posted:quote:This is perfect. All of it.
Leaning this hard into “hate crimes” being somehow more damaging just pushes people to think in teams. It nudges everything toward us vs. them, where people stop being individuals and start being stand-ins for whatever group they belong to. And that’s the exact kind of thinking that leads to collective blame and retaliation in the first place.
quote:And then you approved segregation:
People already think in teams. People already think in terms of "us vs. them." People already think in terms of "collective blame and retaliation."
Read this board on occasion.
* * *
Hate crimes is not the cause of separation. Hate crime legislation recognizes the fact that some people see only separation and are willing to commit criminal acts because of it.
quote:So now we're back to my post:
Voluntary segregation.
quote:Which is to say that people thought of groups, us versus them, etc., long before hate crimes were enacted.
Good. You agree that separation preceded the enactment of hate crimes. Thank you.
Posted on 4/29/26 at 12:51 pm to Chucktown_Badger
quote:It is not the same crime if the perpetrator conducted the criminal act with a different motive.
You're literally saying it yourself. DIFFERENT PUNISHMENT for DIFFERENT CRIMES.
DIFFERENT.
You are want different punishment for the SAME crimes.
I will try to explain it again:
If you shoot Joe because you thought the gun was empty, that's probably manslaughter.
If you shoot Joe because he just fricked your wife, that's probable second-degree murder.
If you shoot Joe because he's Jewish, that's probably murder and a hate crime.
If you shoot Joe after a week of planning, that's probably first-degree murder.
In each situation, you shot Joe. Joe is dead. You killed him. The reason why you shot Joe is the issue. The reason why you shot Joe determines your punishment.
Posted on 4/29/26 at 12:55 pm to SallysHuman
quote:Hate crimes do not punish based on characteristics, not the characteristics of the assailant and not on characteristics of the victim.quote:.. is not the same as punishing differences based on characteristics.
Different punishments for different crimes is
Hate crimes, like all other crimes, punish based on why the crime was committed.
Posted on 4/29/26 at 12:57 pm to Salviati
Your interpretation of their selection process and motives is making the point for me on why these things are absurd.
Also, I noticed that you left out them being selected for their gender. That by itself would be enough to satisfy a hate crime charge, and Illinois LOVES hate crimes. Odd that it wasn't brought, isn't it?
Why did you leave out gender in your rationalization?
Also, I noticed that you left out them being selected for their gender. That by itself would be enough to satisfy a hate crime charge, and Illinois LOVES hate crimes. Odd that it wasn't brought, isn't it?
Why did you leave out gender in your rationalization?
This post was edited on 4/29/26 at 12:58 pm
Posted on 4/29/26 at 1:03 pm to Salviati
quote:
It is not the same crime if the perpetrator conducted the criminal act with a different motive.
I will try to explain it again:
If you shoot Joe because you thought the gun was empty, that's probably manslaughter.
If you shoot Joe because he just fricked your wife, that's probable second-degree murder.
If you shoot Joe because he's Jewish, that's probably murder and a hate crime.
If you shoot Joe after a week of planning, that's probably first-degree murder.
In each situation, you shot Joe. Joe is dead. You killed him. The reason why you shot Joe is the issue. The reason why you shot Joe determines your punishment.
You refer to motive and then proceed to list out completely different crimes
I'll try and help you. Please explain why and how you would punish these crimes differently:
Scenario 1: I shoot Joe after a week of planning because I think he's an a-hole and I hate him
Scenario 2: I shoot Joe after a week of planning because I think he's an a-hole and I hate him and he's gay
quote:
all other crimes, punish based on why the crime was committed.
No they don't.
This post was edited on 4/29/26 at 1:05 pm
Posted on 4/29/26 at 1:04 pm to Chucktown_Badger
quote:Not absurd. Difficult for the prosecutor to prove, sure.
Your interpretation of their selection process and motives is making the point for me on why these things are absurd.
quote:I did not leave gender out of my explanataion:
Your interpretation of their selection process and motives is making the point for me on why these things are absurd.
Also, I noticed that you left out them being selected for their gender. That by itself would be enough to satisfy a hate crime charge, and Illinois LOVES hate crimes. Odd that it wasn't brought, isn't it?
Why did you leave out gender in your rationalization?
quote:quote:Were they targeting the women because they were white, female, or because they were wealthy?
Groups of black dudes from the south side of Chicago take the train up to the wealthier north side neighborhoods and target white women, whom they rob at gunpoint.
Hate crimes?
If they targeted based on race, that qualifies as a hate crime in Louisiana.
If they targeted based on gender, that qualifies as a hate crime in Louisiana.
If they targeted based on wealth, that does not qualify as a hate crime.
LINK
This post was edited on 4/29/26 at 1:07 pm
Posted on 4/29/26 at 1:06 pm to Salviati
So we're agreed that those crimes should've been prosecuted as hate crimes? Good. Yet they weren't. See any two-tiered justice system being displayed here?
Posted on 4/29/26 at 1:11 pm to Salviati
quote:
Hate crimes do not punish based on characteristics, not the characteristics of the assailant and not on characteristics of the victim. Hate crimes, like all other crimes, punish based on why the crime was committed.
Again, you keep pushing how it's supposed to work vs how it works.
You know it's not good for your point if someone provides a counter and you just ignore it and keep pushing the same tired narrative. Right?
Back to page 4:
For example:
quote:
JACKSON, Miss. — Family members say a West Point man is in a Tupelo hospital after he and another man were attacked in a Huddle House parking lot by up to 20 people.
Ralph Weems, a 32-year-old Marine and Iraq war veteran, was in fair condition Monday, according to officials at North Mississippi Medical Center.
Monday evening, police arrested 22-year-old Courtez McMillian of Okolona. He is being held in the Clay County Detention Center and will be charged with aggravated assault.
Brinkley said other arrests are also pending, and that most, if not all of the assailants appear to come from Monroe County. Detectives are reviewing video footage of the incident.
The Associated Press reports that Weems went to a Waffle House early Saturday. His friend David Knighten, an Air Force veteran of the Afghanistan war who was with him, told reporters that a man told him politely outside the restaurant that it wasn't a safe place for whites, because people were upset by the killing of 18-year-old Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo.
Knighten said when he entered the restaurant, Weems was arguing with some people inside. The argument brought police, and Knighten and Weems left. On their way to Weems' house, they stopped at a Huddle House with an empty parking lot, according to the AP.
The pair was followed to Huddle House by what Knighten said was around 20 people. Witnesses told police that the group was made up of black men, but couldn't identify any of them. One witness did provide a vehicle description and police said they are working on identifying the owner.
Knighten told reporters he was trying to defuse the situation. When a security guard told everyone to leave, Knighten said he was blocked from getting to Weems, who was on the ground being kicked by a group of people. Knighten said others then attacked him.
"I do remember racial slurs being yelled from the crowd," he told the AP.
Knighten couldn't be reached for comment Monday, but he posted on Facebook Saturday.
"All my injuries were minor fractures and lacerations. I just wish I could have reached him sooner. Please keep your thoughts and prayers on Ralph," he wrote.
Brinkley, (black West Point Police Chief) who could not be reached for comment Monday, said in the release that the attack right now is an aggravated assault investigation, and that the cause is not yet determined.
This does not appear to be a hate crime," he said. "It's very early in this investigation but thus far the evidence and statements suggest that a verbal altercation turned physical and somebody got hurt."
Posted on 4/29/26 at 1:12 pm to Salviati
quote:
That is contrary to hundreds of years of common law.
I was clumsy in my statement. But we don't disagree, inherently.
If my desire to kill Joe is because he's gay, then yes, the motive does matter, and would result in a first-degree murder charge. This makes sense.
But it shouldn't result in 1st degree murder *and* additional charges. That's stupid. Murder is still murder.
Posted on 4/29/26 at 1:12 pm to Chucktown_Badger
quote:Why are they different crimes?
You refer to motive and then proceed to list out completely different crimes
They are different crimes because of the motive.
quote:The first question I have is: Do you think Joe is an a-hole solely because he's gay, and do you hate him solely because he's gay?
I'll try and help you. Please explain why and how you would punish these crimes differently:
Scenario 1: I shoot Joe after a week of planning because I think he's an a-hole and I hate him
Scenario 2: I shoot Joe after a week of planning because I think he's an a-hole and I hate him and he's gay
If your opinion and hatred are not solely because he's gay, then it is probably not a hate crime.
I hope I helped.
Posted on 4/29/26 at 1:15 pm to CleverUserName
quote:
Except they aren't. For example:
It’s interesting this post was not addressed…
Posted on 4/29/26 at 1:17 pm to Chucktown_Badger
quote:No. We're not agreed that those crimes should've been prosecuted as hate crimes.
So we're agreed that those crimes should've been prosecuted as hate crimes? Good. Yet they weren't. See any two-tiered justice system being displayed here?
Again, the perpetrators took the train up to the wealthier north side neighborhoods. Lakeview, Lincoln Park, and Wrigleyville were targeted by a group of armed individuals, with several incidents occurring in quick succession.
Again, any prosecutor would have a difficult time convincing a jury of twelve people that the victims in the Lakeview, Lincoln Park, and Wrigleyville neighborhoods were targeted because of race and not because of wealth.
Posted on 4/29/26 at 1:17 pm to Salviati
quote:
The first question I have is: Do you think Joe is an a-hole solely because he's gay, and do you hate him solely because he's gay?
If your opinion and hatred are not solely because he's gay, then it is probably not a hate crime.
I hope I helped.
The answer to your question, "why do I think Joe is an a-hole" does not matter, and suggesting that thinking he's an a-hole for "any of these magical 10 reasons" vs. all the other possible reasons means I need to be punished more severely, is absurd and the whole point being made. That help?
A question in response. Do we want to deter all murder, or just certain ones?
This post was edited on 4/29/26 at 1:18 pm
Posted on 4/29/26 at 1:18 pm to Salviati
quote:
The first question I have is: Do you think Joe is an a-hole solely because he's gay, and do you hate him solely because he's gay?
It doesn't matter *why* I think Joe is an a-hole. I just do, and I commit a crime. That's murder. End of story.
I could hate the fact that he wears brikenstocks. Codifying Birkenstock-enthusiasts as a protected class is just as stupid as color of skin or sexual proclivities.
Posted on 4/29/26 at 1:19 pm to jchamil
quote:
It’s interesting this post was not addressed…
Prepare yourself for "this was an isolated incident... sooo..." post
Posted on 4/29/26 at 1:19 pm to Salviati
quote:
No. We're not agreed that those crimes should've been prosecuted as hate crimes.
Again, the perpetrators took the train up to the wealthier north side neighborhoods. Lakeview, Lincoln Park, and Wrigleyville were targeted by a group of armed individuals, with several incidents occurring in quick succession.
Again, any prosecutor would have a difficult time convincing a jury of twelve people that the victims in the Lakeview, Lincoln Park, and Wrigleyville neighborhoods were targeted because of race and not because of wealth.
Again, you leave out their specific targeting of women. So, intentionally obtuse it is
Posted on 4/29/26 at 1:29 pm to CleverUserName
quote:You seem to be pointing to a case where a police chief, not a prosecutor, miscategorized a case while it was very early in the investigation:
Again, you keep pushing how it's supposed to work vs how it works.
You know it's not good for your point if someone provides a counter and you just ignore it and keep pushing the same tired narrative. Right?
Back to page 4:
quote:Your singular case is not a counter.
Brinkley, (black West Point Police Chief) who could not be reached for comment Monday, said in the release that the attack right now is an aggravated assault investigation, and that the cause is not yet determined.
This does not appear to be a hate crime," he said. "It's very early in this investigation but thus far the evidence and statements suggest that a verbal altercation turned physical and somebody got hurt."
It's an anecdote.
Guess what. The criminal justice system is not perfect. That's an incontrovertible fact. Mistakes get made.
The mere fact that a possible mistake was made at one point in a case does not prove anything.
Posted on 4/29/26 at 1:34 pm to Salviati
quote:
You seem to be pointing to a case where a police chief, not a prosecutor, miscategorized a case while it was very early in the investigation:
Well you would have me dead to rights.... IF it was prosecuted as a hate crime.
It wasn't. Sooo....
quote:
Your singular case is not a counter.
Nailed it.
quote:
Guess what. The criminal justice system is not perfect. That's an incontrovertible fact. Mistakes get made. The mere fact that a possible mistake was made at one point in a case does not prove anything.
You wanna coherently articulate how this was a "mistake"?
And surely you are of the opinion that laws apparently as vague as "hate crime" laws, where "mistakes" can be made soooo easily and soooo often, are unnecessary or even possibly downright unconstitutional.
Right?
Page 6 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News