Beatdown of transgendered in Baltimore, MD McDonalds

Beach girl said:
Yes, she's alive and well, apparently, and has made statements to the police and press.

I'm double-screening (watching TV and doing stuff on the computer) and on the evening news just a little while ago, there was another story about it. The prosecutor has to decide tonight if he's going to prosecute this as a "hate crime." If so, there is another 10 years potentially added to the penalty.

I have mixed feelings about these "hate crime" penalties. To me, that seems like it's saying that one life is more valuable than another life. If you're just a regular ol' person and someone attacks you, well, maybe they get a year in jail for that. But if you're some member of a protected class, oh in that case, it's REALLY terrible that you were attacked, and the perp goes away for 10 years.

That doesn't really make sense to me, with a few, very rare exceptions (like attacks on children, for instance). An attack is an attack; a beating is a beating; a killing is a killing. The victim suffers the same.

I'm glad for any possibility of getting these girls off the streets for as long as possible; if it takes a "hate crime" determination to do it, I'm all for it, although as a philosophy, I think we should not be separating out victim status like that.
Click to expand...

I agree with you on all accounts. A violent crime is a violent no matter who it is against. It shouldn't matter whether you are gay, straight, tranny, or a just a country mom trying to raise some kids. I have issues about even the whole "hate crime" thing....Like I said, a violent crime is a violent crime...period.

I am very glad to hear the victim is alive and seems to be doing well. Although what permanent damage this may have caused this person is yet to be known. I hope those two skanks get what they damn well deserve in spades.
 
Beach girl said:
I have mixed feelings about these "hate crime" penalties. To me, that seems like it's saying that one life is more valuable than another life. If you're just a regular ol' person and someone attacks you, well, maybe they get a year in jail for that. But if you're some member of a protected class, oh in that case, it's REALLY terrible that you were attacked, and the perp goes away for 10 years.

That doesn't really make sense to me, with a few, very rare exceptions (like attacks on children, for instance). An attack is an attack; a beating is a beating; a killing is a killing. The victim suffers the same.
Click to expand...
By Regular ol' person, please explain what you mean.....
protected class, please explain what you mean....
Being targeted because you are a certain way puts racists in jail for doing something REALLY terrible...being racist. I am assuming when you say "normal" you are referring to a "Caucasian person", and while that is a another racial subject itself, ANYONE can be the victim of a hate crime, it has nothing to do with "classes of people". I did not know we came in classes, secondly what are the "Protected classes"? Hate crime is a crime committed on the sole point of 1 specific attribute... Thats what a hate crime is, Why are you counting an attack on children different, if an attack is an attack then two could have gotten the same charge for fighting a 250 pound bouncer? Also, 2 grown men beating up on one 110 pound girl should also be the same charge as a beating is a beating? same charge for a 87 year old fighting an entire gang of Hispanics?, i do not understand your reasoning here. suffering the same is the difference between a hangnail and being paralyzed...

(if that was determined a male in a female bathroom by a jury/count btw, then his charge would be worse than battery..sexual offender is not so light)
10 years in jail for getting in a fight is just insane, you say a beating is a beating yet i feel you are extremely hypocritical your statement...10 YEARS for a FIGHT?!
 
those "classes" that are not there are only the gay/lesbian population and that is a complicated subject, esp. if you are trying to remain fair and not sexiest. everything else though, are all accounted for. rest of my opinion still stands tho.
 
OK, but I want to point out that I'm not the one saying "10 years for a fight." That's what the hate crimes law says. Otherwise the penalty would be less.
 
Beach girl said:
OK, but I want to point out that I'm not the one saying "10 years for a fight." That's what the hate crimes law says. Otherwise the penalty would be less.
Click to expand...

I suppose they are trying to make a point and fear them into stopping, but the distance should not be 10x the penalty of regular battery, agree!
 
Beach girl said:
OK, but I want to point out that I'm not the one saying "10 years for a fight." That's what the hate crimes law says. Otherwise the penalty would be less.
Click to expand...
A fight would imply that two people had a disagreement that escalated into a physical altercation. "Fights" are diadic.

I don't think this was a fight. It was an attack. Based on hate. Hate crime.
 
Whereas usually attacks are based on...the great love for humanity flowing through the attacker's veins?

In my opinion, every attack is a hate crime, whether the victim belongs to a particular protected class or not.
 
Beach girl said:
Whereas usually attacks are based on...the great love for humanity flowing through the attacker's veins?

In my opinion, every attack is a hate crime, whether the victim belongs to a particular protected class or not.
Click to expand...

Attacks are not always based on the criteria that makes an attack a hate crime. Hate crime is reserved for those acts that fulfill specific criteria.:roll:

Perhaps you have an overly broad definition of hate. Most physical violence is a crime of passion, not hate. Including murder.
 
Hate crime is reserved for those acts that fulfill specific criteria.:roll:
Click to expand...

I know that. My point is that the distinction should not be made; that it's a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, which requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction.

If someone beats up Joe Jones just for the hell of it, he gets x years in jail as punishment. But if he beats up Mohammed Abaza because he hates Muslims, then he gets x plus 10 years.

So how does Joe Jones' family feel about that? Like his health and safety was regarded as of lesser importance to the state than Abaza's was?

I don't think punishment should be contingent on the status of the victim; it should be based on what harm was done.

Those who feel otherwise feel that there is greater harm done to the state or society by crimes against certain classes of victims, which vary from state to state. I think it's a poor legal theory.
 
Beach girl said:
I know that. My point is that the distinction should not be made; that it's a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, which requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction.

If someone beats up Joe Jones just for the hell of it, he gets x years in jail as punishment. But if he beats up Mohammed Abaza because he hates Muslims, then he gets x plus 10 years.

So how does Joe Jones' family feel about that? Like his health and safety was regarded as of lesser importance to the state than Abaza's was?

I don't think punishment should be contingent on the status of the victim; it should be based on what harm was done.

Those who feel otherwise feel that there is greater harm done to the state or society by crimes against certain classes of victims, which vary from state to state. I think it's a poor legal theory.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't a violation at all. In fact, it is in place to insure equal protection.

You made the whole point of the hate crime law in your example. Hate crime law is not there to make a pronouncement on the value of the victim, but rather, on the intent of the perpetrator. You seem to have it reversed in your thinking.

So, I guess you don't believe that there are certain populations that are more at risk for assault simply because they are a part of that population. Shame we all can't live in that world.
 
So someone who beats the crap out of a stranger, leaves the victim for dead and permanently disabled, doesn't get as many years behind bars because he did it just for sociopathic fun rather than hate?
 
Reba said:
So someone who beats the crap out of a stranger, leaves the victim for dead and permanently disabled, doesn't get as many years behind bars because he did it just for sociopathic fun rather than hate?
Click to expand...

Wrong assumption, as usual.
 
Reba said:
Tell me what part is wrong, and why the "as usual" is necessary.
Click to expand...

When it comes to GTLB issues, mental health issues, and racial issues, you consistently make assumptions that are innacurrate.

Wrong in that you failed to note that degree of the offense determines time served. If someone beat another severely enough to cause permanent disability, they would not be charged with simple assault.:roll:
 
jillio said:
When it comes to GTLB issues, mental health issues, and racial issues, you consistently make assumptions that are innacurrate.

Wrong in that you failed to note that degree of the offense determines time served. If someone beat another severely enough to cause permanent disability, they would not be charged with simple assault.:roll:
Click to expand...
Are you saying that extra sentencing years are not added on for hate crimes?
 
Beach girl said:
Whereas usually attacks are based on...the great love for humanity flowing through the attacker's veins?

In my opinion, every attack is a hate crime, whether the victim belongs to a particular protected class or not.
Click to expand...
Nope, not at all the same. Attacking someone who is a member of a protected class not only violates criminal statutes, it also violates civil rights the victim has.
 
I understand that your intentions are well, but you are looking at the wrong aspect, the guilty are not getting less years than the hate crime perp, but the hate crime perp is getting more years. You should be just defending the increase in battery punishment not agree that a racist should be back on the streets faster. i think you are overlooking this, but i think i can fix this.

If one were to be targeted because they are deaf/hoh in this example. During these targeting, they would find out who was deaf/hoh and they would brutally beat them. essentially what your doing (and im pretty sure your not meaning to) is saying they should not go to jail as long, it should be equal as if a guy walked in on his wife being unfaithful and did the same bottley harm. If you have a law that only looks at the damage and nothing more, then you miss the motive. if someone targets you because your deaf and no other reason, that is unacceptable and that is essentially what Hitler did with jews/blacks. i know you would not defend any murder being equal to a murder from hitler..
 


Write your reply...
Back
Top