3 ms·

>Remember that this is the age wherein people are getting arrested for destroying LGBT, BLM, etc signs and art. To think that police won't get away with using a

>Remember that this is the age wherein people are getting arrested for destroying LGBT, BLM, etc signs and art. To think that police won't get away with using a standard that approaches that isn't realistic. Black people and LGBT people are protected classes. Law enforcement is a job. People are getting arrested for hate crimes, the definition of which is a crime motivated by desire to cause harm to a protected class or members of a protected class. You're saying it's unrealistic to think police won't get away with trying to apply protected class protections to an occupation. That's an extraordinary claim whether it's true or false. If it's true, police can defacto make up laws. If it's false, it's reasonable to expect that police should have some oversight that prevents overreach.

mrangle 3y ago
There aren't protected class allowances for assault. This thread, more than others on HN, fatally suffers from abuse of jargon. Your last two sentences are word salad. Between the double negative and hyperbole I have zero idea what you are trying to say.
- mcdonje 3y ago
  Flippant response. I didn't abuse jargon and there is no word salad. My comment is clear. You're describing hate crimes and saying police are trying to treat actions against them the same way they treat hate crimes. It's not hyperbole to say that amounts to them making up laws.
  - mrangle 3y ago
    Yes, a flippant response. The flippant response is well deserved. It's audacious of you to defend unreadable grammar. An indecipherable double negative is word salad, as is the referential sentence that follows it. Again, because the sentence that it references is indecipherable. I'm not a pedant. I virtually never correct on grammar. I never use correction as a rhetorical device. I legitimately can't interpret your writing. Fix your sentence, if you choose to. As long as laws have existed, their scope has been argued in court. To wit, we have strong equal protections law in this Nation. As anti-protected-classes law and constitutional law activists have long argued, laws of this type will be used beyond their intended narrow scope and across the political isle. Also, see speech censorship efforts. None of that means that law enforcement is conjuring laws. The part of this that you dislike was always inherent in the creation of hate crime enhancements. And, in part, this potential is why many have always seen the notion of protected classes as a terrible idea. You're complaining now. Wait until they fully reverse the law to only apply to them. At that point, it will still be the fault of those who advocated for this unconstitutional nonsense to begin with.

mrangle 3y ago

There aren't protected class allowances for assault. This thread, more than others on HN, fatally suffers from abuse of jargon. Your last two sentences are word salad. Between the double negative and hyperbole I have zero idea what you are trying to say.

mcdonje 3y ago
Flippant response. I didn't abuse jargon and there is no word salad. My comment is clear. You're describing hate crimes and saying police are trying to treat actions against them the same way they treat hate crimes. It's not hyperbole to say that amounts to them making up laws.
- mrangle 3y ago
  Yes, a flippant response. The flippant response is well deserved. It's audacious of you to defend unreadable grammar. An indecipherable double negative is word salad, as is the referential sentence that follows it. Again, because the sentence that it references is indecipherable. I'm not a pedant. I virtually never correct on grammar. I never use correction as a rhetorical device. I legitimately can't interpret your writing. Fix your sentence, if you choose to. As long as laws have existed, their scope has been argued in court. To wit, we have strong equal protections law in this Nation. As anti-protected-classes law and constitutional law activists have long argued, laws of this type will be used beyond their intended narrow scope and across the political isle. Also, see speech censorship efforts. None of that means that law enforcement is conjuring laws. The part of this that you dislike was always inherent in the creation of hate crime enhancements. And, in part, this potential is why many have always seen the notion of protected classes as a terrible idea. You're complaining now. Wait until they fully reverse the law to only apply to them. At that point, it will still be the fault of those who advocated for this unconstitutional nonsense to begin with.