Beatdown of transgendered in Baltimore, MD McDonalds

qawaearata said:
You have no idea how much i LIVE by the bolded statement, when people just turn there cheek and pretend like it isnt going on!!!!
Click to expand...

If you live by that statement, then you are obviously learned, tolerant, and non-judgemental. Good for you. My kind of people!:wave:
 
Curious question: Forget about hate crime laws, doesn't the time served get influenced by the motive anyway? Someone said here that it should be the same for the degree of damage. But that kind of doesn't make sense. 2 victims from a brutal attack, Victim A was in a bar fight and fought back. Victim B was attacked from behind and brutally attacked for no reason, he didn't fight back. Both victims have the same degree of "hurt". Should the attackers go to jail for the same amount of time?

How about if Victim A was male and Victim B was female?

What about rape? Isn't rape somewhat of a "hate crime" in itself? It targets women. Should we treat it as a normal "brutal attack"? If not, then aren't we paying special attention to a specific group? Women?

I understand the reasoning behind "treat them all equal". Unfortunately, crime doesn't treat them all equal, which is why the law follows suit.
 
Daredevel7 said:
Curious question: Forget about hate crime laws, doesn't the time served get influenced by the motive anyway?
Click to expand...
Does it? I thought convicted felons were sentenced following statute guidelines. That is, from so many years minimum to so many years maximum for murder in the second degree.

What about those creeps who raped and murdered the Connecticut doctor's wife and two daughters, and then set fire to them and the house? The two killers didn't "hate" the family. There was no racial, religious, ethnic, or sexual preference motive. Does that make their crime less heinous?

Someone said here that it should be the same for the degree of damage. But that kind of doesn't make sense. 2 victims from a brutal attack, Victim A was in a bar fight and fought back. Victim B was attacked from behind and brutally attacked for no reason, he didn't fight back. Both victims have the same degree of "hurt". Should the attackers go to jail for the same amount of time?
Click to expand...
The accused of case A and case B would probably be brought up under different charges, since the circumstances of each are different. You don't provide nearly enough details to compare them.

How about if Victim A was male and Victim B was female?
Click to expand...
That's still not the whole case. Not enough details.

What about rape?
Click to expand...
Rape and sexual assault are charges separate from simple assault and battery.

Isn't rape somewhat of a "hate crime" in itself?
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. Some rapists do it for their pleasure satisfaction, so do it out of anger, some do it for a display of power. There are various reasons.

It targets women.
Click to expand...
Rapists target mostly women and children, but they also attack men.

Should we treat it as a normal "brutal attack"? If not, then aren't we paying special attention to a specific group? Women?
Click to expand...
No. The crime statutes of rape pay special attention to the act, not a victim group.

I understand the reasoning behind "treat them all equal". Unfortunately, crime doesn't treat them all equal, which is why the law follows suit.
Click to expand...
Each case can be tried by its own circumstances.

Criminals never consider equality for whatever crime they commit, no matter what the reason is that they commit it.

Criminals don't consider the humanity of any of their victims.
 
Reba said:
Does it? I thought convicted felons were sentenced following statute guidelines. That is, from so many years minimum to so many years maximum for murder in the second degree.
Click to expand...

Are you okay with murders being classified as the first and second degree? Isn't this an obvious way of trying to reduce or increase the harshness of the sentence based on the motive alone? You said murder is murder. So, in theory, shouldn't there be no first and second degree of murder?

Reba said:
What about those creeps who raped and murdered the Connecticut doctor's wife and two daughters, and then set fire to them and the house? The two killers didn't "hate" the family. There was no racial, religious, ethnic, or sexual preference motive. Does that make their crime less heinous?
Click to expand...

It seems like this implies that there is an infinite scale for how bad a crime is in terms of years served in prison. Wouldn't murder in the form of a hate crime and first degree murder (like in your case) BOTH have maximum sentence? Isn't there a point in how bad the crime is where there is a maximum limit? I mean, the killers you described in the case above probably is serving the same time as a single serial killer who has been raping and killing women and little girls over the span of 20 years, just because both cases have reached maximum.

Reba said:
The accused of case A and case B would probably be brought up under different charges, since the circumstances of each are different. You don't provide nearly enough details to compare them.


That's still not the whole case. Not enough details.
Click to expand...

What do you need details for? Isn't "a murder a murder"? Likewise, isn't "an attack an attack"? Do you need details for.... the motive?
 
Daredevel7 said:
Are you okay with murders being classified as the first and second degree? Isn't this an obvious way of trying to reduce or increase the harshness of the sentence based on the motive alone? You said murder is murder. So, in theory, shouldn't there be no first and second degree of murder?
Click to expand...
The degrees aren't based on motives.

First Degree Murder vs Second Degree Murder - Difference and Comparison | Diffen

It isn't even necessary to prove a motive in order to get a conviction.
 
Daredevel7 said:
It seems like this implies that there is an infinite scale for how bad a crime is in terms of years served in prison.
Click to expand...
No. Each jursidiction follows sentencing guidelines (minimums and maximums) for its area. They are established by statute.

Wouldn't murder in the form of a hate crime and first degree murder (like in your case) BOTH have maximum sentence? Isn't there a point in how bad the crime is where there is a maximum limit? I mean, the killers you described in the case above probably is serving the same time as a single serial killer who has been raping and killing women and little girls over the span of 20 years, just because both cases have reached maximum.
Click to expand...
Since the maximum sentence is death, then I don't know how that could be increased.

What do you need details for? Isn't "a murder a murder"? Likewise, isn't "an attack an attack"? Do you need details for.... the motive?
Click to expand...
No, not for motive. Was it premeditated? How much planning was involved? What was the mode of death? How many people were involved? Was the intent to kill, or was the death secondary to the intended crime?

You don't think trials need details? Trials depend on details.
 
Daredevel7 said:
Are you okay with murders being classified as the first and second degree? Isn't this an obvious way of trying to reduce or increase the harshness of the sentence based on the motive alone? You said murder is murder. So, in theory, shouldn't there be no first and second degree of murder?



It seems like this implies that there is an infinite scale for how bad a crime is in terms of years served in prison. Wouldn't murder in the form of a hate crime and first degree murder (like in your case) BOTH have maximum sentence? Isn't there a point in how bad the crime is where there is a maximum limit? I mean, the killers you described in the case above probably is serving the same time as a single serial killer who has been raping and killing women and little girls over the span of 20 years, just because both cases have reached maximum.



What do you need details for? Isn't "a murder a murder"? Likewise, isn't "an attack an attack"? Do you need details for.... the motive?
Click to expand...

Bingo! If motive were not an issue, murders, or attacks, would not be classified in various ways, and the sentence would not be dependent upon that classification.

It would appear that the reason for concern would be that it bothers some that a tranny...or any protected class falling under hate crimes...would get more consideration under the law than they themselves would. Sad.
 
Reba said:
Since the maximum sentence is death, then I don't know how that could be increased.
Click to expand...

Exactly. So you can have a whole range of crime that is varied in how "heinous" it is but with the same result: death. Just because you cannot increase the maximum sentence. My point was that murder is a bad example for comparing between "hate" murder and "no reason" murder, just because the act itself is so bad, it overpowers the motive behind it.

Reba said:
No, not for motive. Was it premeditated? How much planning was involved? What was the mode of death? How many people were involved? Was the intent to kill, or was the death secondary to the intended crime?
Click to expand...

If you believe that it is the right thing to do to gather all the details you mentioned in order to assess the sentence, I find that really interesting... because.... I am not sure why it's good to find out those details WITHOUT taking into account the reasoning behind it.

Reba said:
You don't think trials need details? Trials depend on details.
Click to expand...

Never said that. I'm saying if you're saying that "Murder is murder" and "An attack is an attack", then, in theory, motive should not be used to classify the degrees of murder/attack nor the sentence received. I mean... does this make sense:

Guy A attacks a victim out of blind rage. Someone simply pissed him off.
Guy B has been planning to attack victim for MONTHS out of revenge. So he gets more time than Guy A.
Guy C hates black people. And he sees one and decides to attack him on the spot. According to your views, he should get the same time as Guy A.

To me, in theory, according to your views, ALL GUYS should have the same amount of time. After all, an attack is an attack, right?

If not, then why should Guy B have more time than the others? What's the point of different degrees for murder and assault?
 
what legal rights transgendered people have? They are exempted from the ADA.

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 provide that people with the following conditions are not protected and do not constitute physical or mental impairments:
transvestitism
transsexualism
kleptomania
homosexuality
bisexuality
current use of illegal drugs
compulsive gambling
sexual behavior disorders
disorders caused by the current illegal use of drugs
pedophilia
exhibitionism
voyeurism
gender identity disorders not resulting from physical impairments

(Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1992 and 42 U.S.C. $12211 (ADA)
 
The ADA doesn't have anything to do with it. Being Black isn't a disability, either, but Blacks are considered a protected class under hate crimes.:roll:
 
white people are a protected class too. The lawyers who resigned from the DOJ over the New Black Panther party intimidation in Philly wrote good legal analyses only to be overturned with political-mined Obama/Holder political appointees...
Jilio, you forgot some white people are the minority in some county and city....

jillio said:
The ADA doesn't have anything to do with it. Being Black isn't a disability, either, but Blacks are considered a protected class under hate crimes.:roll:
Click to expand...
 
omg.jpg


I cannot believe that one of member in here is an idiot.
 
jillio said:
The ADA doesn't have anything to do with it. Being Black isn't a disability, either, but Blacks are considered a protected class under hate crimes.:roll:
Click to expand...

That's correct. :hug:
 
I wrote what legal protections transsexuals have? you didn't answer correctly because either you're ignorant or don't know the answer...

jillio said:
The ADA doesn't have anything to do with it. Being Black isn't a disability, either, but Blacks are considered a protected class under hate crimes.:roll:
Click to expand...
 
DURAY said:
you live in "Location: Dixieland"

what a racist word. who is the idiot then? I assume you used the n word a lot?
Click to expand...

Not true, that show about how stupid is you.
 
DURAY said:
I wrote what legal protections transsexuals have? you didn't answer correctly because either you're ignorant or don't know the answer...
Click to expand...

And I just told you. They are a protected class under hate crime laws. What part of that are you having a problem understanding?
 
Back
Top