Woman charged in Fort Hood-related hate crime: Pulling a headscarf

Adam Weinberg said:
We don't know for a fact that Amal Abusumayah is not a white person. Matthew Shepard was a white person, and he was still a victim of a hate crime (under current law).

I'm a white person, and it would be considered a hate crime for a Neo-Nazi to harm me on the basis that I am Jewish.

I will say that I don't really follow the libertarian line of reasoning on this issue that stricter sentencing constitutes a punishment of what a person is thinking. They are punished on the basis of what they do and why they do it. This happens all the time in determining the severity of other crimes.

It seems in this and many hate crimes cases that the only one who is punished specifically for what they think is the person being attacked. Obviously hate speech and free association between these undesirable bigots should be legal, though socially discouraged, in a free country. It's also legal to advocate for Communism in this country, it's just not (theoretically) legal to practice it.

They do not have a right to act out their bigoted feelings by violating the rights of others.

To me, it's no different than civil rights. It is confirming in the law what should already be within people's rights based on our Constitution but goes unenforced.

The majority will not assault itself, and it will not deprive itself of its own rights except inadvertently.

This country is shared by many kinds of people, and we all have a right to equal protection under the law, regardless of what may be different about us. If there is no opportunity to use the motive of the criminal to sentence them more harshly, then minority political, ethnic, religious and now gender-identity groups will be more vulnerable to discrimination and injustices than majority groups. And as an aside, even majority groups have the protections of hate crime laws if the motivation of the offender was because of their identity.

As for this specific instance, the sentence should fit the crime. It should be sentenced as any other instance where this would happen, and the judge should have some added discretion as it relates to the offender's motive.

Maybe a smart judge can require her to actually meet some Muslims born right here in the United States. It would behoove the offender to be less ignorant about the country she is living in.
Click to expand...
Look, I think there is merit to the argument that "Hate Crimes" are a form of double jeopardy. There's all ready is an existing criminal statute and it's called assault but to argue that "Hate Crimes" are a form of reverse discrimination defies reason.
 
apple0154 said:
I agree, Meme! Just like all this sexual harassment crap. Even compliments are not protected as Free Speech.Tell a gal she's got a nice a$$ and they come down on you like you swore to the Pope!
Click to expand...
I know exactly what you mean. I get sexually harrassed at work all the time cause I guess I have a very cute booty. Why just the other day I was walking down the hall and as I walked by a couple of customer service reps (female) one said to the other after I walked by "Boy What An Ass!"

I felt violated!!! :cry:
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Look, I think there is merit to the argument that "Hate Crimes" are a form of double jeopardy. There's all ready is an existing criminal statute and it's called assault but to argue that "Hate Crimes" are a form of reverse discrimination defies reason.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing you meant to quote STY and not me then, right?
 
Adam Weinberg said:
I'm guessing you meant to quote STY and not me then, right?
Click to expand...

Yeah. Your initial post was crystal clear to me. This is the 2nd guy that has misunderstood it. Perhaps you should have thrown a couple of rounds of "cocksucker" and "dickwipe" in the post to make it more conducive to the current level of debate on the board, thus more understandable.
 
Adam Weinberg said:
I'm guessing you meant to quote STY and not me then, right?
Click to expand...
No, I was just agreeing with you in part. The point I was making is that there are legitimate reasons for opposing "Hate Crimes" but that STY's point on Hate Crimes being a form of reverse discrimination is just not one of them. You're probably right. I should have quoted STY though I don't completely agree with you either, that is, I don't agree with "Hate Crimes" laws. I think they are a form of double jeopardy. Laws all ready exist protecting citizens from this type of behavior. If these laws are correctly enforced there is no need for "Hate Crime" laws. After all, aren't almost all acts of violence motivated by greed, passion or hate?
 
Last edited:
meme said:
well ya, no business screaming prejudice...dang that thing we have called Freedom of Speech..if it was up to the lefties we wouldn't have any..
Click to expand...


So republicans think freedom of speech includes verbally intimidating someone, and yanking a scarf of their head?
 
TuTu Monroe said:
Calling this a felony, is really stretching it.
Click to expand...

Glad you noticed that back there. ;) That is what our resident angst ridden folks are missing. I fully support the woman to press charges of someone assaulting here. But there was no felony by pulling on scarf. Hate crime? Nope, not what was meant by the legislation methinks. Was the perp a tool? Certainly. She should be fined for being an ass.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
of course, because you'd have been assaulted for your religion by a christian. it's all relevant to the discrimination needed to avenge years of oppression by white christians against anyone not white and christian.

Not sure where you're getting the idea that this is Libertarian thinking, because it's actually the opposite. Race, color, creed, religion, nationality, and gender doesn't matter. Assault is assault, rape is rape, and murder is murder. They are all crimes and appending a 'why' to the crime is only a means to look for justification where there should be none.
Click to expand...
Murder is not murder. If I kill in the heat of a fight, I have done nothing more than manslaughter, if I kill after much deliberation and I plan it so that I can achieve some goal or gain some advantage then it is first degree homocide
 
Now, if some Muslim tore a cross off of a woman and screamed anti-christian epithets some of you would call it an act of terrorism, because it was religiously motivated. There is no question here that this was motivated by religious intollerance. It fits the definition of a hate crime. What should happen is there should be a guilt innocence phase, where the elements of the crime are discussed, then if she is found guilty, we take testimony in a sentencing phase and see if there is enough evidence to aggrivate the crime so that sentencing is increased by one third. We do this with all sorts of other crimes. We have harsher sentences when men beat their wives versus when they just beat up someone else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top