Homophobe Murder suspect says he was doing God's work

[Yellowdogtexan]

Here is a great reason why the Hate Crime Bill needs to be amended to include homosexuals. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4968717.html?plckCurrentPage=3A Cypress man charged in the death of a Southwest Airlines flight attendant said Saturday that he was doing God's work when he went to a Montrose-area bar last month, hunting for a gay man to kill.

"I believe I'm Elijah, called by God to be a prophet," said 26-year-old Terry Mark Mangum, charged with murder June 11. " ... I believe with all my heart that I was doing the right thing."

Interviewed in the Brazoria County Jail Saturday morning, Mangum said he feels no remorse for killing 46-year-old Kenneth Cummings Jr., whom relatives described as a "loving" son who never forgot a holiday and a devoted uncle who had set up college funds for his niece and nephew. He worked at Southwest for 24 years.

Mangum, who described himself as "definitely not a homosexual," said God called on him to "carry out a code of retribution" by killing a gay man because "sexual perversion" is the "worst sin."

Mangum believed Cummings to be gay.

"I planned on sending him to hell," he said....

Mangum said he stabbed Cummings with a "6-inch blade."

"It's not that I'm a bad dude," he said, expressing concern that people might view him as "strange." Pausing briefly, he said, "I love God."Homophobes are sick people and need professional help. This guy took his wacked out and mornonic religious views and killed someone simply because he thought that they were gay.

[Deadshot]

All violent crime is a hate crime, don't need a seperate bill.

[Cookie Parker]

Well, I've been thinking on that argument for some time and I think we do need hate crimes. I think we need them to demonstrate discrimination, attacks on individual liberties and freedoms in this nation and to target those anti-constitutional groups, such as these religious nuts who think they have a right to disobey our laws in the name of their religion.

I think killing a spouse you find in bed with a lover is different than hunting down a person to kill because your God told you to do so...one is passion, one is hatred/and delusion

[Deadshot]

I think killing a spouse you find in bed with a lover is different than hunting down a person to kill because your God told you to do so...one is passion, one is hatred/and delusion

That's what mitigating circumstances and/or premeditation come into play.

We have degree's of murder for a reason.

[MW]

I think killing a spouse you find in bed with a lover is different than hunting down a person to kill because your God told you to do so...one is passion, one is hatred/and delusion

Murder is murder and NEVER justified except for self-defense. I don't think we need separate laws based on the race or sexual orientation of the victim. That's part of the problem - too friggin many laws . . . hence, too many loopholes. Not to mention - is it more wrong to kill a black gay man, than your spouse who was screwing someone else? Does that not lead to valuing some people's lives more than others?

[Cookie Parker]

That's what mitigating circumstances and/or premeditation come into play.

We have degree's of murder for a reason.


True enough...and that's to be considered. But I think if you're an organization promoting the hatred of a group to the point you are encouraging murder, you need to be on trial, too, and held accountable. Radical religious right groups have been getting away with this for too long. They need to be investigated as subservient anti-American groups for their anti-constitutional stands not only on individual liberties, but on religious freedoms as well as tried as criminals. This can be done through hate crimes legislation.

This man didn't act on his own...he killed an innocent man because of what he felt was his right to do in the teachings of hate from his religious affiliation.

[Cookie Parker]

Murder is murder and NEVER justified except for self-defense. I don't think we need separate laws based on the race or sexual orientation of the victim. That's part of the problem - too friggin many laws . . . hence, too many loopholes. Not to mention - is it more wrong to kill a black gay man, than your spouse who was screwing someone else? Does that not lead to valuing some people's lives more than others?

I don't see the law as one giving special attention to the dead...I see it as weeding out the hate organizations in this country calling upon their groups to murder innocent people. That's my take on hate crimes.

[issac the dragon]

:confusedI think I am inclined to agree that hate laws are unnecessary. My sole problem is that judges sometimes don't allow evidence of hate to be admited in court. Especially if the judge sympatizes with the murderer. So, I'm conflicted about the law.

[Ringo]

All violent crime is a hate crime, don't need a seperate bill.


I screwed up my Rep points I sent you, but we actually agree on something! Now if Dog was defending this guy and IF he was a good lawyer, he would have to go with Diminished Capacity or Insanity, as he even stated in his comment that Homophobes need PROFESSIONAL help!

Religion is not a good argument, unless of course Doggie admits that MUSLIMES are HATERS and sick, because they kill for Religious beliefs!

The guy needs to be put away, and if we just Prosecute the Laws on the books, the Country would do great!

[Deadshot]

True enough...and that's to be considered. But I think if you're an organization promoting the hatred of a group to the point you are encouraging murder, you need to be on trial, too, and held accountable. Radical religious right groups have been getting away with this for too long. They need to be investigated as subservient anti-American groups for their anti-constitutional stands not only on individual liberties, but on religious freedoms as well as tried as criminals. This can be done through hate crimes legislation.

This man didn't act on his own...he killed an innocent man because of what he felt was his right to do in the teachings of hate from his religious affiliation.

And if you killed your spouse because I said s/he was cheating on you would I be responsible, if I told you about the spouse cheating?

Preach or teach what you will, it is still that person, who commits the crime.

Free Speech is a bitch

[Cookie Parker]

And if you killed your spouse because I said s/he was cheating on you would I be responsible, if I told you about the spouse cheating?

Preach or teach what you will, it is still that person, who commits the crime.

Free Speech is a bitch

Not hardly...unless you were the one in bed...LOL!!!!

No, when you have hate organizations PREACHING hatred, they need to be addressed as hate organizations...No one seems to have a problem labeling Muslims as hate crime groups...although it is cells of radical groups who want to do away with the "infidels". Therefore, the logical progression of such thought for me is if we have a hate group mascarading as Christian that preaches gays are an abomination against God and should be killed, and gays die from those preachings, then this Christian group is ALSO a hate group...see?

[Zanoog]

I screwed up my Rep points I sent you, but we actually agree on something! Now if Dog was defending this guy and IF he was a good lawyer, he would have to go with Diminished Capacity or Insanity, as he even stated in his comment that Homophobes need PROFESSIONAL help!

Religion is not a good argument, unless of course Doggie admits that MUSLIMES are HATERS and sick, because they kill for Religious beliefs!

The guy needs to be put away, and if we just Prosecute the Laws on the books, the Country would do great!

:aisha What would any of us do without Ringo wisdom?

And pray tell, what does our leader do with Muslim hate criminals? Gitmo - no counsel, no trial, no hope. Let's send the Christian haters there too.

Is that not fair?

[MW]

I think those that preach to hate a certain group, should be held as accessories to murder.

It is wrong to label ALL Muslims as murderers, as it is to label Christians as anti-gay, etc.

The problem is that PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY has gone out the window.

[Deadshot]

Not hardly...unless you were the one in bed...LOL!!!!

No, when you have hate organizations PREACHING hatred, they need to be addressed as hate organizations...No one seems to have a problem labeling Muslims as hate crime groups...although it is cells of radical groups who want to do away with the "infidels". Therefore, the logical progression of such thought for me is if we have a hate group mascarading as Christian that preaches gays are an abomination against God and should be killed, and gays die from those preachings, then this Christian group is ALSO a hate group...see?


I see, but you do realize that the KKK, Neo-Nazis and SEVERAL hate groups are legal in the USA, don't you?

Go here, Hate Map at the Southern Poverty Law Center (http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/hate.jsp)

You can't stop free speech...:shrug

Oh, on the Muslim thing, what Muslim org here in the USA is calling for deaths of Americans? If they are, just like the other hate groups, they're being watched. But we don't act until AFTER something happens...it's our system.

[Yellowdogtexan]

All violent crime is a hate crime, don't need a seperate bill.From a pure legal standpoint I disagee. Actually very few violent crimes are based on the type of hate covered by hate crime bills. For example the motivation for robbery and armed robberty is greed and need for money. Most violent crimes involving drugs is based not on hate but on the need for money to get the drugs in question. The motivation for most murders is on a personal level, i.e. dislike of a single specified individual or jealousy and is not based on the hatred of a specified class or group of people. The motivation for rape and sexual crimes is not hate but desire for power. The hate for a specific class of people is not the motivation for most crimes which is why hate crime laws are important. People who commit a crime based on the hatred of a group of people or a class of people are likely to repeat their crime until all members of that group are eliminated. There is no doubt that the nut case who is the subject of this thread will continue killing homosexuals until stopped because he is a homophobe.

Since gays are not covered by the hate crime law, it will be a little more difficult to try this nut case. If the hate crime law was applicable, then the DA would have an easier time putting this person away for a longer time period.

[Yellowdogtexan]

:confusedI think I am inclined to agree that hate laws are unnecessary. My sole problem is that judges sometimes don't allow evidence of hate to be admited in court. Especially if the judge sympatizes with the murderer. So, I'm conflicted about the law.All hate crime laws do is enhanced the punishment for somone who commit a crme based on hate. The law does the same thing in a number of other cases such as in the case of murder where the intent of the person affects whether a crime was pre-mediated or was an act of passion.

There was a thread a couple of weeks ago about a young man in Houston who killed himself after being a victim of a hate crime. One of his attackers got life and the other attacker was sentenced to 90 years. If the hate crime was not applicable to this attack, these two attackers would have gotten shorter sentences and would be eligible for parole in a matter of a few years. The fact that this was a hate crime meant that these two attackers are serving a longer sentence and will not be eligible for parole for a long time which is appropriate. Given that hatred of hispanics was an element of this crime, these two attackers are likely to attack other minorities in the future. The hate crime law here is working in keeping these attackers behind bars for a longer time.

[Ringo]

True enough...and that's to be considered. But I think if you're an organization promoting the hatred of a group to the point you are encouraging murder, you need to be on trial, too, and held accountable. Radical religious right groups have been getting away with this for too long. They need to be investigated as subservient anti-American groups for their anti-constitutional stands not only on individual liberties, but on religious freedoms as well as tried as criminals. This can be done through hate crimes legislation.

This man didn't act on his own...he killed an innocent man because of what he felt was his right to do in the teachings of hate from his religious affiliation.

BULLSHIT!! Your hatred of Christians is possibly why we need a category for YOU! Are you all for Laraza, the Panthers, the Ultra Leftist Haters, to come under the same category as you try to list Christians?

MURDER is HATE, pure and damn simple, no matter how you try to dress it up or make it look MORE Hteful if the Riight is involved!

[Ringo]

All hate crime laws do is enhanced the punishment for somone who commit a crme based on hate. The law does the same thing in a number of other cases such as in the case of murder where the intent of the person affects whether a crime was pre-mediated or was an act of passion.

There was a thread a couple of weeks ago about a young man in Houston who killed himself after being a victim of a hate crime. One of his attackers got life and the other attacker was sentenced to 90 years. If the hate crime was not applicable to this attack, these two attackers would have gotten shorter sentences and would be eligible for parole in a matter of a few years. The fact that this was a hate crime meant that these two attackers are serving a longer sentence and will not be eligible for parole for a long time which is appropriate. Given that hatred of hispanics was an element of this crime, these two attackers are likely to attack other minorities in the future. The hate crime law here is working in keeping these attackers behind bars for a longer time.

And of course you would CHAMPION any effort to make sure if a Black, Mexican, Gay, or Athiest, Muslim, Eskimo, Indian etc,attacks a White Boy, you would go after them full bore!!!!...Yea..un huh..sure would...yeppers!:mw:mw:mw:cheeky

[Yellowdogtexan]

Hate crimes are appropriate and are legal. Ringo apparently does not understand what hate crimes do. These laws do not outlaw hate but provide for enhanced punishmnet for people who commit crimes based on hate. Haters are sick people who are going to repeat their crime. That is why hate crime laws provide for enhanced punishment against people who based a crime based on hate.

[Rockin Rodney]

Are HATE crime laws geared towards one group of citizens over the many others? Could it be possible that all the hate in America, is blamed on the Right, the GOP, the Christians, and especially White males?

It appears that way and I can sure as hell tell you there are many haters out there and they come in many different colors and Races. But you do not see Yellowdogtexan point this out why?

[The Q]

I think it has something to do with the nature of being "conservative".

And I don't think being conservative is a bad thing, necessarily---but the fact is, institutions that are inherently conservative ARE slow to change. In theory, this keeps us from going full-force willy nilly into the future without stopping to think about where we've come from and what changes we're willing to make. It also provides society with stability.

HOWEVER, because they are slow to change, they tend to hang on to antiquated ideas a bit longer. That means that people who are basing their craziness on things like religion can often find justification for their behavior in the ranks of conservatives.

I don't know any intelligent, halfway educated conservatives that actually think killing gay people in the name of The Lord is a good idea.

But as a Muslim, I see similar stuff happening in our religion. There is definitely a heavy conservative base for Islam in this century, and the lunatics who want to justify their craziness can many times find antiquated reasons for what they are doing. Most Muslims I know (liberal OR conservative) think terrorism is an abomination---but you can always find some backwards mullah or sheikh who will be willing to tell you that "infidels = USA" or some such nonsense---in the same way that you have Jerry Falwell or other backwards preachers telling their people that "gays = worthy of death!"

Anyway, that's my opinion. :lol

ADQ

[Trueblue]

Murder is murder and NEVER justified except for self-defense. I don't think we need separate laws based on the race or sexual orientation of the victim. That's part of the problem - too friggin many laws . . . hence, too many loopholes. Not to mention - is it more wrong to kill a black gay man, than your spouse who was screwing someone else? Does that not lead to valuing some people's lives more than others?

Are first and second degree murder charges valuing some lives over others?

And of course you would CHAMPION any effort to make sure if a Black, Mexican, Gay, or Athiest, Muslim, Eskimo, Indian etc,attacks a White Boy, you would go after them full bore!!!!...Yea..un huh..sure would...yeppers!:mw:mw:mw:cheeky

This is an attack based on no evidence. It is complete bullshit, and it's sorry of you to attack someone in this way.

Are HATE crime laws geared towards one group of citizens over the many others? Could it be possible that all the hate in America, is blamed on the Right, the GOP, the Christians, and especially White males?

It appears that way and I can sure as hell tell you there are many haters out there and they come in many different colors and Races. But you do not see Yellowdogtexan point this out why?

This is simply not so. I posted a link the other day that showed that anti-white prejudice is a frequent reason for a hate crime, according to the FBI.

What media outlets do you use to gather facts, RR?

[AnnEsthesia]

Hate crimes happen to christians too. Fire bombing of churches, anyone?

[Wabash]

All violent crime is a hate crime, don't need a seperate bill.

Totally AGREE!!!!

Anyone who commits pre-meditated murder is a sick son of a bitch, no matter what his/her reasons are!

No Special Laws for UNspecial people!

[Yellowdogtexan]

No Special Laws for UNspecial people!It appears that Wabby and the conservatives do not understand how hate crime laws work. The claim that hate crime laws create special rights for people is just plain ignorant and shows that these people do not understand what hate crime laws do. These laws generally provide for enhanced penalties when the motive for a crime is hatred. There are no special rights granted to any group. All these laws do is provide that if hate is a motive for certain crimes, then the punishment for such crime is enhanced and certain burdens of proof are modified. This does not give any member of a protective group any special rights.

Hate crimes are appropriate and have passed constitutional review by the SCOTUS. The justification for these laws is that someone who commits a crime due to hatred is likely to commit the same or similar crimes in the future. The hate does not go away and so this crime needs to be treated with harsher penalties and sentences. Again no special rights are created and the claims to the contrary just shows a complete ignorance as to what hate crime laws do.

[Wabash]

It appears that Wabby and the conservatives do not understand how hate crime laws work. The claim that hate crime laws create special rights for people is just plain ignorant and shows that these people do not understand what hate crime laws do. These laws generally provide for enhanced penalties when the motive for a crime is hatred. There are no special rights granted to any group. All these laws do is provide that if hate is a motive for certain crimes, then the punishment for such crime is enhanced and certain burdens of proof are modified. This does not give any member of a protective group any special rights.

Hate crimes are appropriate and have passed constitutional review by the SCOTUS. The justification for these laws is that someone who commits a crime due to hatred is likely to commit the same or similar crimes in the future. The hate does not go away and so this crime needs to be treated with harsher penalties and sentences. Again no special rights are created and the claims to the contrary just shows a complete ignorance as to what hate crime laws do.


I absolutely and unequivocally disagree!
There most certainly ARE Special Rights...as soon as you mention gays, you have designated a SPECIAl group to be protected from Haters!
We have too many laws on the books now, nationwide!
We don't need "enhanced" penalties!
"The justification for these laws is that someone who commits a crime due to hatred is likely to commit the same or similar crimes in the future."
I say HOGWASH!!!!!
Murder, Rape, Robbery, Aggravated Assault, Arson...all have sufficient penalties in place! It doesn't matter if it's the killer of a spouse, a kid, a stranger, or a Peter Puffer!
If a guy HATES every wife he has every had and kills them all, it's no different then killing every gay he has ever met.
The mere Mention of gays and Hate Crimes is prejudicial! That means BIAS!!!
NO SPECIAL RIGHTS FOR GAYS!!!!!!

[Yellowdogtexan]

I absolutely and unequivocally disagree!Again, I urge you take a course in logic. Your rant was amusing but you did not establish how there was any special rights created by hate crime laws. Do you understand what the term rights mean. Here is a simple google search of this term http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:Rights&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=titleHate crime laws do not establish or create any special rights. People who are in the protective classes under hate crime laws have no special rights. All these laws do is provide for additional punishments for people who commit a crime base on hate because the people who committ such crimes are more llkely to commit the same crime again with other members of the protective class. That is not a special right by any legal definition.

The claim that special rights are created by hate crime laws is just a silly and stupid talking point made by people who either are too dumb to understand what hate crime bills do or people who are haters and do not think that they should be punished for expressing their hatred.

[Wabash]

Again, I urge you take a course in logic. Your rant was amusing but you did not establish how there was any special rights created by hate crime laws. Do you understand what the term rights mean. Here is a simple google search of this term http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:Rights&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=titleHate crime laws do not establish or create any special rights. People who are in the protective classes under hate crime laws have no special rights. All these laws do is provide for additional punishments for people who commit a crime base on hate because the people who committ such crimes are more llkely to commit the same crime again with other members of the protective class. That is not a special right by any legal definition.

The claim that special rights are created by hate crime laws is just a silly and stupid talking point made by people who either are too dumb to understand what hate crime bills do or people who are haters and do not think that they should be punished for expressing their hatred.

They don't on their face....until you mention a Special group...then they become that speacial law...

[Yellowdogtexan]

They don't on their face....until you mention a Special group...then they become that speacial law...Once again, you are WRONG. Here is a good letter from the Anti-Defamation League (I am a member) which has a special group that monitors hate speech and homophobic statements on the internet. http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/news_opinion_letters/2007/07/essential-hate-.htmlHate crime laws-now on the books in 45 states and the District of Columbia-do not punish thoughts.

Americans are free to think and believe whatever they want.

It is only when an individual commits a crime based on biased beliefs and intentionally targets another that a hate crime statute is triggered.

The bias motive for the crime cannot be incidental; it must be proven with evidence beyond a reasonable doubt at trial. That high bar-far from "mind reading"-prompted the U.S. Supreme Court to unanimously uphold hate crime laws against a 1st Amendment challenge in 1993.

Moreover, hate crime laws do not confer "special rights." In fact, they operate a lot like the nation's anti-discrimination laws. Would Parker argue that Title VII treats victims of workplace discrimination as "more special than others"? Not at all.

Like anti-discrimination laws, hate crime laws are color-blind and inclusive, and demonstrate an essential commitment by our society to deter and address all prejudiced conduct.

[Yellowdogtexan]

Just for grins, here is a law professor analysis of the bogus special claims argument. http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20070509.htmlSuch an expansion, conservatives often argue, would be giving gay persons "special rights." They have been using this strategy for over a decade. For example, during a 1996 Presidential debate between Senator Bob Dole and President Bill Clinton, both candidates were asked whether they supported legislation making it illegal to fire people on account of their sexual orientation. Clinton said yes. Dole gave the following misleading answer: "I'm opposed to discrimination in any form but I don't favor creating special rights for any group."

Unfortunately, moderator Jim Lehrer did not ask the obvious follow-up question: If you think that a law banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation improperly creates "special rights" for gays, lesbians and bisexuals, does that mean that you oppose the 1964 Civil Rights Act on the ground that it creates special rights for African-Americans and women?

In fact, civil rights legislation almost never creates "special" rights in the sense that its disingenuous critics suggest. For example, the central federal statute, the 1964 Civil Rights Act, protects whites as well as blacks, and men as well as women, against race and sex discrimination. Likewise, the expanded federal hate crime law would protect everybody against hate crimes based on sexual orientation, including hate crimes against straight people.

In actual practice, it's true that we expect civil rights legislation to be invoked more frequently by minorities and women than by members of the socially dominant group. But that is because the former have the dubious honor of being targeted disproportionately for discrimination and hate crimes. The law itself applies to, and protects, everyone.Civil rights laws and hate crime laws do not legally create special rights. This claim is a stupid talking point from the conservatives who evidently object to the concept that it is wrong to kill homosexuals.

The lack of the coverage of the Texas hate crime law means that the homophobe who is the subject of this thread may recieve a lesser punishment and may get out to commit a further crime. If the Texas hate crime law applied, it would be easier to keep this homophobe behind bars for a far longer period of time. I think that given this homophob's statements that he should be sent away forever because it is clear that whenever he gets out again, he will continue trying to kill gays.

[Zanoog]

Can we declare a winner? :clap

[The Q]

Ssssssssnap! :ohyeah

YDT hits a homer.

ADQ

[Yellowdogtexan]

I am not finished yet. Here is another good article on why the special rights claim is silly. http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=23783Opponents of hate crimes legislation have been spreading the false assertion that it somehow creates “special rights” for LGBT Americans and others who would be protected by the law. Typical is the claim by Matt Barber, Policy Director for Cultural Values at Concerned Women for America, that hate crimes legislation “elevates one group of Americans above others, creating a special class of victims.”

Hate crimes laws do create a category of violent crime that is motivated by a desire to harm or intimidate a person intentionally selected because of his or her membership in a certain class of people. There is a clear public good to justify policy that punishes and prevents crimes designed to sow fear and division by singling out individuals based on characteristics like race or sexual orientation. When a gay or lesbian person is attacked or harassed because of his or her sexual orientation, the threat of continued violence is felt by all those who could be singled out in the future. Just as terrorist attacks are designed to cause fear as much as destruction, anti-gay hate crimes are designed to send the message that gays and lesbians should feel constantly endangered because of their sexual orientation.

Opponents of hate crimes laws frequently claim that this is an Orwellian change in legal principles – the equivalent of criminalizing thought. Nonsense. The laws would apply to the commission of violent crimes and the motivation behind those crimes. That kind of distinction is familiar to anyone with knowledge of our criminal justice system. Our laws make distinctions, for example, between first degree murder, second degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, and involuntary manslaughter. In each case, the tragic result is the same – someone has died – but the legal system administers different punishments depending on the intent of the killer. Moreover, freedom from violence and harassment should never be considered a “special right” for any American, and myriad laws have been passed to protect those very basic rights. In specific circumstances, the proposed legislation would allow the federal government to step in and prosecute hate crimes in instances when local law enforcement can’t or won’t.hate crime laws do not create special rights for gays. This claim is simply wrong.

[Wabash]

I am not finished yet. Here is another good article on why the special rights claim is silly. http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=23783hate crime laws do not create special rights for gays. This claim is simply wrong.

Ok..I got it. Good research YDT! Made ya work for it thou huh?:ohyeah

Seriously, what most concerns me is the over zealous cop or DA that is ready to tag on a hate crime when there isn't one!
Say a guy attacks me in an ally...I defend myself and in the onslaught, he slips and falls and hits his head and dies. The guy unbeknownst to me, turns out to be gay. Initially, they will charge me with manslaughter and if I can't readily prove my innocense, they will tack on a hate crime chg. as well. Just like they do with the civil rights charges against police officers...I'm totally against either.

[Trueblue]

Ok..I got it. Good research YDT! Made ya work for it thou huh?:ohyeah

Seriously, what most concerns me is the over zealous cop or DA that is ready to tag on a hate crime when there isn't one!
Say a guy attacks me in an ally...I defend myself and in the onslaught, he slips and falls and hits his head and dies. The guy unbeknownst to me, turns out to be gay. Initially, they will charge me with manslaughter and if I can't readily prove my innocense, they will tack on a hate crime chg. as well. Just like they do with the civil rights charges against police officers...I'm totally against either.

No, that's not how it will work.

[Yellowdogtexan]

Say a guy attacks me in an ally...I defend myself and in the onslaught, he slips and falls and hits his head and dies. The guy unbeknownst to me, turns out to be gay. Initially, they will charge me with manslaughter and if I can't readily prove my innocense, they will tack on a hate crime chg. as well. Just like they do with the civil rights charges against police officers...I'm totally against either.If you had read the materials that I posted you would have seen this from one of my buds at the ADL http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/news_opinion_letters/2007/07/essential-hate-.html
The bias motive for the crime cannot be incidental; it must be proven with evidence beyond a reasonable doubt at trial. That high bar-far from "mind reading"-prompted the U.S. Supreme Court to unanimously uphold hate crime laws against a 1st Amendment challenge in 1993. Like any crime, the burden of the hate crime element is beyond a reasonble doubt which would protect you in the hypo that you pose. Again, hate crime laws serve a purpose and it is wrong that such laws do not cover sexual orientation.

[Yellowdogtexan]

Ok..I got it. Good research YDT! Made ya work for it thou huh?:This was not particularily hard research. I did not break a sweat here and could find still more articles if I need to.

[Wabash]

This was not particularily hard research. I did not break a sweat here and could find still more articles if I need to.

You apparently have a lot more time on your hands and much better computer skills then I...that's not saying much thou, since I've only had my personal puter for 4 1/2 years..and don't have a lot of time to play here and still run my business..

[The Q]

YTD, can you explain further how it is possible to avoid that scenario that Wabash brought up?

I mean, if a person commits a crime, and the other person is a minority (of any kind--religious, sexual orientation, race), how is the criminal assured of not getting the extra penalty when he or she is tried in court?

ADQ

[Yellowdogtexan]

YTD, can you explain further how it is possible to avoid that scenario that Wabash brought up?Remember that the State has the burden of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt) on all elements of the offense including with respect to the specific intent required for a hate crime. The State has to prove that crime was motivated by the race, national orign or sexual orientation of the victim. The mere fact that the victim was in the protected class is not sufficient to satisfy this burdern of proof by itself.

Most or many of these cases have obvious hatred involved. The young hispanic from Houston who committed sucide had a hate symbol carved into his chest. The homophobe who is the subject of this thread in effect confessed to his motive for killing gays, i.e. because G-D told him to. The cases that I have seen charged as hate crimes had obvious facts showing that the hatred of the victim was the reason for the crime such as extreme violence or acts designed to punish or shame the victim so that it is clear that hate was the motive.

While the hate crime law provides for additional penalties, it also carries additional elements of proof. Most prosecutors will not charge someone with a hate crime unless they know that they can prove that hate was the motive for the crime.

It is possible for someone to be convicted of a hate crime and not have the intent? Yes, this could happen. The system is not perfect but it is the best in the world. But this would not occur in the simple accident case described above unless something else was done to provide evidence that hatred toward the victim was the reason for the crime

[Yellowdogtexan]

You apparently have a lot more time on your hands and much better computer skills then I..College debate teaches one to be very efficient at research. Law review also helps ones research skills. It only took a couple of minutes to find the articles that I used on this thread.

[Yellowdogtexan]

Elizabeth Edwards is both a lawyer and an amazing person. Here is her response to the silly special rights claim http://www.gay.com/news/article.html?coll=news_articles&sernum=2007/07/16/1&page=1Edwards, speaking at a Human Rights Campaign gala Saturday in San Francisco, said Singh's death reminded her of Matthew Shepard's. She slammed President Bush for pledging to veto the federal hate crimes bill, SB1105, passed by the House and up for a vote this week in the Senate, which would extend protections to LGBTs.

"The right to live without the fear of being murdered for whom we love is not a special right," the AP quoted Edwards as saying.

"We were in fact reminded again while we share the lingering memory of a fence post in Laramie. The sorrow of that image is now joined by a park at Lake Natoma in Sacramento," she said.

[Sal Monella]

Hate crime laws just divide Americans further.

Murder is murder and the color or sexual orientation of the victim should not be a consideration...just the motive.

Although I would consider the age of the victim in some circumstances.

[cassandra]

Hate crimes, pleas of insanity, etc. . . all of these muddy the waters. Killing is killing!

[AnnEsthesia]

Um... no. There is a difference between shooting someone and beating them, tossing them down the stairs, taking them out to an abandoned dirt road, sodomizing them with an object, beating them some more, branding them and finally tying them up and leaving them to die alone.

There is a difference and it should be treated differently.

[Ringo]

I think it has something to do with the nature of being "conservative".

And I don't think being conservative is a bad thing, necessarily---but the fact is, institutions that are inherently conservative ARE slow to change. In theory, this keeps us from going full-force willy nilly into the future without stopping to think about where we've come from and what changes we're willing to make. It also provides society with stability.

HOWEVER, because they are slow to change, they tend to hang on to antiquated ideas a bit longer. That means that people who are basing their craziness on things like religion can often find justification for their behavior in the ranks of conservatives.

I don't know any intelligent, halfway educated conservatives that actually think killing gay people in the name of The Lord is a good idea.

But as a Muslim, I see similar stuff happening in our religion. There is definitely a heavy conservative base for Islam in this century, and the lunatics who want to justify their craziness can many times find antiquated reasons for what they are doing. Most Muslims I know (liberal OR conservative) think terrorism is an abomination---but you can always find some backwards mullah or sheikh who will be willing to tell you that "infidels = USA" or some such nonsense---in the same way that you have Jerry Falwell or other backwards preachers telling their people that "gays = worthy of death!"

Anyway, that's my opinion. :lol

ADQ

Not ONCE or can you prove it, BUT NOT ONCE did Jerry Falwell EVER call for anyone to kill a Gay or anyone in the name of the Lord! He was a hardcore Preacher, raised up Southern Baptist, but he followed the Commandments, taught the LOVE of Christ, and he was rightfully concerned about Gays, Druggies, and all people who sinned!

HATE has not a damn thing to do with conservatives either, as I see far more HATE on the Left than I have ever witnessed on the Right! I am accused of HATE all the time and that is bullshit, how disgusted and pissed at times, has become HATE, a fucking word tool for the inadequacies of the LEFT, as they have NO message!

I have a Muslim from Egypt who lives next door, and we change out watching each others house, we have cookouts, he showed me some fascinating slides of the Pyramids etc.., so its WHO, not WHAT you are that counts!

[AnnEsthesia]

So you will no longer be advocating the destruction of the whole middle east, I take it?

[Wabash]

Um... no. There is a difference between shooting someone and beating them, tossing them down the stairs, taking them out to an abandoned dirt road, sodomizing them with an object, beating them some more, branding them and finally tying them up and leaving them to die alone.

There is a difference and it should be treated differently.

Why? All those are separate crimes, accounted for on the law books! We have too many laws on the books now...No need for a Hate Crimes law...period!

Stop hate Crimes law! Just say no!

[AnnEsthesia]

Because Wabash. Someone who shoots someone should not face the same penalties as someone who does all of the stuff I said above. There should be penalties to fit the crime, not one size fits all.

[Wabash]

Because Wabash. Someone who shoots someone should not face the same penalties as someone who does all of the stuff I said above. There should be penalties to fit the crime, not one size fits all.

They ALREADY have penalties for EACH and EVERY crime you cited....Having another law is Totally unnecessary! Ya know, the laws on the books have worked fine for over 200 years here....I mean, this is Overkill!

[AnnEsthesia]

Whatever Wabash. Funny thing about laws. They evolve and change over time.

[The Q]

You literally missed the entire point of my post.

ADQ

Not ONCE or can you prove it, BUT NOT ONCE did Jerry Falwell EVER call for anyone to kill a Gay or anyone in the name of the Lord! He was a hardcore Preacher, raised up Southern Baptist, but he followed the Commandments, taught the LOVE of Christ, and he was rightfully concerned about Gays, Druggies, and all people who sinned!

HATE has not a damn thing to do with conservatives either, as I see far more HATE on the Left than I have ever witnessed on the Right! I am accused of HATE all the time and that is bullshit, how disgusted and pissed at times, has become HATE, a fucking word tool for the inadequacies of the LEFT, as they have NO message!

I have a Muslim from Egypt who lives next door, and we change out watching each others house, we have cookouts, he showed me some fascinating slides of the Pyramids etc.., so its WHO, not WHAT you are that counts!

[Wabash]

Whatever Wabash. Funny thing about laws. They evolve and change over time.

Yes, they do Ann, sometimes they get more stupid too, sometimes more enlightened....there are still hundreds of stupid laws on the books for every state and Federal govt.

You know, back in 1970, when I first started in law enforcement, we had all the laws we needed to arrest someone on the crimes you cited....and I did, multiple times..
Ya know what....they always got convicted too....I never lost a court case in 25 years for an arrest I made.:wink

[Yellowdogtexan]

They ALREADY have penalties for EACH and EVERY crime you cited....Having another law is Totally unnecessary! Ya know, the laws on the books have worked fine for over 200 years here....I mean, this is Overkill!Once again, you are WRONG and your post is ignorant. Hate Crime Laws do not create new offenses or special rights but provide for enhanced punishment for people who commit crimes based on hate. These laws are constitutional and are appropriate.

As for the adequacy of the punishment, let me again provide an example A young man in Houston was attacked by some skinheads, sodomized, and a hate symbol was carved on his chest. The victim nearly died and underwent 30 surgeries. The young man eventually committed sucide.

Since this was a hate crime because the victim was Hispanic and the attackers were skinheads, one attacker got life and the other attacker got 90 years. Without the hate crime law, the maximum sentence for these two skinheads would have been much shorter and it would be only a matter of time before these hate mongers were out doing the same thing again. Because the Texas hate crime law applied, these skinheads got an appropriate punishment and hopefully will not be on the streets for a very long time. Here the hate crime law served an important function.

[Wabash]

Once again, you are WRONG and your post is ignorant. Hate Crime Laws do not create new offenses or special rights but provide for enhanced punishment for people who commit crimes based on hate. These laws are constitutional and are appropriate.

As for the adequacy of the punishment, let me again provide an example A young man in Houston was attacked by some skinheads, sodomized, and a hate symbol was carved on his chest. The victim nearly died and underwent 30 surgeries. The young man eventually committed sucide.

Since this was a hate crime because the victim was Hispanic and the attackers were skinheads, one attacker got life and the other attacker got 90 years. Without the hate crime law, the maximum sentence for these two skinheads would have been much shorter and it would be only a matter of time before these hate mongers were out doing the same thing again. Because the Texas hate crime law applied, these skinheads got an appropriate punishment and hopefully will not be on the streets for a very long time. Here the hate crime law served an important function.


I totally agree with you on this example...sounds like an appropriate sentence...you are starting to convince me...I may have to reevaluate my position.

Oh, btw, when posting, feel free to type out GOD, it doesn't offend me in the least..:)

[Yellowdogtexan]

Oh, btw, when posting, feel free to type out GOD, it doesn't offend me in the least..:)It is a Jewish thing. Many Jews use G-D. We are enjoined from using the true name of G-D and so use G-D instead.

[The Q]

:lmao

ADQ

[Wabash]

It is a Jewish thing. Many Jews use G-D. We are enjoined from using the true name of G-D and so use G-D instead.

Really? I didn't know that. Ok, I'm down with that...:beer The only Jewish person I have ever known was a JAP and I didn't like her at all.

:lmao

ADQ

Now WHY is that funny?:dunno

[The Q]

I just thought it was funny that, in light of all the complaining done here (by multiple parties) about people saying offensive things, you thought YDT was trying not to offend you while you guys were in the middle of a heated debate. :shrug

ADQ

[Trueblue]

Not ONCE or can you prove it, BUT NOT ONCE did Jerry Falwell EVER call for anyone to kill a Gay or anyone in the name of the Lord! He was a hardcore Preacher, raised up Southern Baptist, but he followed the Commandments, taught the LOVE of Christ, and he was rightfully concerned about Gays, Druggies, and all people who sinned!

HATE has not a damn thing to do with conservatives either, as I see far more HATE on the Left than I have ever witnessed on the Right! I am accused of HATE all the time and that is bullshit, how disgusted and pissed at times, has become HATE, a fucking word tool for the inadequacies of the LEFT, as they have NO message!

I have a Muslim from Egypt who lives next door, and we change out watching each others house, we have cookouts, he showed me some fascinating slides of the Pyramids etc.., so its WHO, not WHAT you are that counts!

No, you don't.

I totally agree with you on this example...sounds like an appropriate sentence...you are starting to convince me...I may have to reevaluate my position.

Oh, btw, when posting, feel free to type out GOD, it doesn't offend me in the least..:)

Wabash, I am in agreement-YDT has really swayed me on this issue.