5 ms·

Thanks to your comment I read through to the original article and it’s even more despicable than I’d thought from the description. She’s being accused of a “hat

Thanks to your comment I read through to the original article and it’s even more despicable than I’d thought from the description. She’s being accused of a “hate crime” for “intimidating the police” based on defacing a sign. It’s the most disgusting thing I’ve ever heard of, and I have no idea why any rational human being would defend it.

zdragnar 3y ago
Several people have been charged with hate crimes for spinning their car tires over rainbow painted sidewalks, even though nobody else was present. Hate crime is a fucking stupid term; a crime is a crime is a crime. That said, if targeting one group deserves special treatment, then targeting any group should get the same. Equal application of the law, y'know?
- harimau777 3y ago
  Police officers are given much more power than regular people; let alone a minority group like LGBT people. It makes sense for them to be held to a higher standard. Edit: It also looks like they were NOT charged with a hate crime for vandalizing a pride crosswalk. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2023/04/14/fact-check-man-who-defaced-intersection-not-charged-hate-crime/11649922002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2023/04/14/fac...
- enragedcacti 3y ago
  Protected classes are part of the law and "Cop" is not one of them. Treating cops the same as minority groups would be ignorance of the law, not equal application of it.
  - mrangle 3y ago
    There are no protected class allowances for assault. This thread is a menagerie of legal misunderstanding and buzzword abuse.
- tehwebguy 3y ago
  > Several people have been charged with hate crimes for spinning their car tires over rainbow painted sidewalks, even though nobody else was present. You don’t think general vandalism and targeted vandalism should be handled differently? Also, citation needed!
- 542354234235 3y ago
  >Hate crime is a fucking stupid term; a crime is a crime is a crime. Is a crime a crime? Why are there first degree murder, second degree murder, and voluntary manslaughter? They are all the act of killing someone intentionally, with the only difference being the person's thought process and motivation. Most crimes involve taking into consideration the reasons for the act as part of what makes a crime a crime. So, hate crimes are not some outlier in how crimes are defined and differentiated. > if targeting one group deserves special treatment, then targeting any group should get the same. Equal application of the law, y'know? Hate crimes (and protected classes in general) are not “one group” nor are they randomly picked. At the federal level, they are race, religion, ethnicity, disability, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, and/or gender identity, which basically fall into two different categories; what you are and what you believe. None of them are for what job you happen to choose to do. The “special treatment” statements is particularly fallacious, since most hate crime laws came in response systematic violence committed against these groups and them not receiving equal protection under the law. We don’t have anti lynching laws to give black people special treatment.
  - zdragnar 3y ago
    That's not what first and second degree murder or manslaughter are. The result is the same for the victim, but the specific actions and intentions are different. Put another way, why is it better if I murder someone because I hate vegans, or meat eaters, or poor people, or rich people, or car drivers or pedestrians than someone of a protected group? Adding new laws doesn't make them be enforced any better, so I don't buy the "systemic" argument. Either someone is tried and found guilty or not.
- yamazakiwi 3y ago
  What sidewalks are you talking about... That is just one instance of misguided outrage to drive your confirmation bias. No one has context for your sensationalized news story. If people started attacking other people for being Gluten-free, and the government saw that there was a large amount of cases, they would create regulations trying to curtail the amount of crime targeting those people. They are creating regulation with the intention of lowering crime targeting a small group because it is atypical.
- otikik 3y ago
  > crime is a crime is a crime Fortunately lawyers can not win trials with that argument in particular. > Equal application of the law, y'know? The context here is that we have a group (the Police) already enjoys special privileges (like monopoly on the use of force legally) and want to expand those privileges even further. I don't think your argument works the way you seem to think it works.
at_a_remove 3y ago
Those of us who said, over and over again, how dumb it was to make up "hate crimes" as a thing are smirking. We did tell you what would happen. Nobody wanted to hear it. Now it's here and everyone is all "shocked Pikachu" from the middle of that slippery slope.
- mitt_romney_12 3y ago
  This isn't a problem with hate crimes this is a problem with the level of immunity cops are given. If hate crimes had never been "made up" (whatever that means) they would have just found another way to make it illegal to piss off cops.
  - at_a_remove 3y ago
    Of course they were made up. It's a legal construct. "Hate crimes" did not exist as a legal charge fifty years ago. Why are you using language as if you did not know this?
- harimau777 3y ago
  As I understand it, legislation defining hate crimes addresses a very real issue: By creating a threatening environment hate crimes can cause dramatically more damage than what the base crime itself would suggest. For example, the minor punishments associated with trespassing and vandalism don't seem proportionate to the harm caused by the Klan burning a cross in someone's front yard. Without hate crime legislation, it would be easy for bigots to harass people via what the law would see as minor crimes. So I'm not necessarily opposed to getting rid of hate crime legislation. However, we would need some other way to protect people.
- tehwebguy 3y ago
  Repeating Elon Musk talking points in public is wild! The concept of mens rea is not new, it’s a vital factor in the defining, charging, convicting (and dismissing and acquitting) of crimes.
  - at_a_remove 3y ago
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
dcow 3y ago
Someone scratched a slur onto the bathroom wall when I was in college and it became a campus wide hate crime and we all had a week of fishbowls and micro-aggression training. People actually believe that these things constitute hate crimes. It is absurd.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  It depends on, among other things, the relative power of the speaker and target. Prejudice, to be dangerous, requires power. Prejudice + Power = Danger. In a world of of 95% Martians and 5% Venusians, if a Martian calls all Venusians corrupt and evil, it's a danger - the Venusians may be at risk; their future - career, safety, status, etc. - depends on the goodwill of the Martians. If a Venusian does the same about Martians, it's easily dismissed because the Martians can continue to live and study safely. IOW, punching up and punching down are entirely different things. Criticizing the government is punching up; criticizing (e.g.) homeless people is punching down.

zdragnar 3y ago

Several people have been charged with hate crimes for spinning their car tires over rainbow painted sidewalks, even though nobody else was present. Hate crime is a fucking stupid term; a crime is a crime is a crime. That said, if targeting one group deserves special treatment, then targeting any group should get the same. Equal application of the law, y'know?

harimau777 3y ago
Police officers are given much more power than regular people; let alone a minority group like LGBT people. It makes sense for them to be held to a higher standard. Edit: It also looks like they were NOT charged with a hate crime for vandalizing a pride crosswalk. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2023/04/14/fact-check-man-who-defaced-intersection-not-charged-hate-crime/11649922002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2023/04/14/fac...
enragedcacti 3y ago
Protected classes are part of the law and "Cop" is not one of them. Treating cops the same as minority groups would be ignorance of the law, not equal application of it.
- mrangle 3y ago
  There are no protected class allowances for assault. This thread is a menagerie of legal misunderstanding and buzzword abuse.
tehwebguy 3y ago
> Several people have been charged with hate crimes for spinning their car tires over rainbow painted sidewalks, even though nobody else was present. You don’t think general vandalism and targeted vandalism should be handled differently? Also, citation needed!
542354234235 3y ago
>Hate crime is a fucking stupid term; a crime is a crime is a crime. Is a crime a crime? Why are there first degree murder, second degree murder, and voluntary manslaughter? They are all the act of killing someone intentionally, with the only difference being the person's thought process and motivation. Most crimes involve taking into consideration the reasons for the act as part of what makes a crime a crime. So, hate crimes are not some outlier in how crimes are defined and differentiated. > if targeting one group deserves special treatment, then targeting any group should get the same. Equal application of the law, y'know? Hate crimes (and protected classes in general) are not “one group” nor are they randomly picked. At the federal level, they are race, religion, ethnicity, disability, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, and/or gender identity, which basically fall into two different categories; what you are and what you believe. None of them are for what job you happen to choose to do. The “special treatment” statements is particularly fallacious, since most hate crime laws came in response systematic violence committed against these groups and them not receiving equal protection under the law. We don’t have anti lynching laws to give black people special treatment.
- zdragnar 3y ago
  That's not what first and second degree murder or manslaughter are. The result is the same for the victim, but the specific actions and intentions are different. Put another way, why is it better if I murder someone because I hate vegans, or meat eaters, or poor people, or rich people, or car drivers or pedestrians than someone of a protected group? Adding new laws doesn't make them be enforced any better, so I don't buy the "systemic" argument. Either someone is tried and found guilty or not.
yamazakiwi 3y ago
What sidewalks are you talking about... That is just one instance of misguided outrage to drive your confirmation bias. No one has context for your sensationalized news story. If people started attacking other people for being Gluten-free, and the government saw that there was a large amount of cases, they would create regulations trying to curtail the amount of crime targeting those people. They are creating regulation with the intention of lowering crime targeting a small group because it is atypical.
otikik 3y ago
> crime is a crime is a crime Fortunately lawyers can not win trials with that argument in particular. > Equal application of the law, y'know? The context here is that we have a group (the Police) already enjoys special privileges (like monopoly on the use of force legally) and want to expand those privileges even further. I don't think your argument works the way you seem to think it works.

at_a_remove 3y ago

Those of us who said, over and over again, how dumb it was to make up "hate crimes" as a thing are smirking. We did tell you what would happen. Nobody wanted to hear it. Now it's here and everyone is all "shocked Pikachu" from the middle of that slippery slope.

mitt_romney_12 3y ago
This isn't a problem with hate crimes this is a problem with the level of immunity cops are given. If hate crimes had never been "made up" (whatever that means) they would have just found another way to make it illegal to piss off cops.
- at_a_remove 3y ago
  Of course they were made up. It's a legal construct. "Hate crimes" did not exist as a legal charge fifty years ago. Why are you using language as if you did not know this?
harimau777 3y ago
As I understand it, legislation defining hate crimes addresses a very real issue: By creating a threatening environment hate crimes can cause dramatically more damage than what the base crime itself would suggest. For example, the minor punishments associated with trespassing and vandalism don't seem proportionate to the harm caused by the Klan burning a cross in someone's front yard. Without hate crime legislation, it would be easy for bigots to harass people via what the law would see as minor crimes. So I'm not necessarily opposed to getting rid of hate crime legislation. However, we would need some other way to protect people.
tehwebguy 3y ago
Repeating Elon Musk talking points in public is wild! The concept of mens rea is not new, it’s a vital factor in the defining, charging, convicting (and dismissing and acquitting) of crimes.
- at_a_remove 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

dcow 3y ago

Someone scratched a slur onto the bathroom wall when I was in college and it became a campus wide hate crime and we all had a week of fishbowls and micro-aggression training. People actually believe that these things constitute hate crimes. It is absurd.

wolverine876 3y ago
It depends on, among other things, the relative power of the speaker and target. Prejudice, to be dangerous, requires power. Prejudice + Power = Danger. In a world of of 95% Martians and 5% Venusians, if a Martian calls all Venusians corrupt and evil, it's a danger - the Venusians may be at risk; their future - career, safety, status, etc. - depends on the goodwill of the Martians. If a Venusian does the same about Martians, it's easily dismissed because the Martians can continue to live and study safely. IOW, punching up and punching down are entirely different things. Criticizing the government is punching up; criticizing (e.g.) homeless people is punching down.