Gay Bar Attack

B_Stronzo

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2005
Posts
4,588
Media
0
Likes
130
Points
183
Location
Plimoth Plantation
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
EnglishGentleman said:
I respect your right to your Catholic beliefs and values LINittanyLion and I hope you respect my values (probably not very different from your own) which don't require the validation or instruction of any ethereal third party.

You can be justly proud of saying you are a true believer, and I can stand equally as tall to say "I worked it out for myself".

Amen, or the non-believer's equivalent EG.
 

GottaBigOne

Cherished Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2004
Posts
1,035
Media
13
Likes
255
Points
303
Age
42
Location
Dallas (Texas, United States)
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
stronzo said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by GottaBigOne
Can someone explain to me why the classification of "hate crime" is needed?

To eradicate the phenomenon ideally I would say.
Do you really think that making stuff illegal makes it actually go away???

stronzo said:
For me, being a "bigot" is an actual crime when one randomly subjugates those who he considers lesser by taking a hatchet, a machete, and a handgun to them.
Being a bigot is not a crime. Doing those things that I put in bold are, and those should be punished blindly. What's next for you? Should all people that commit crimes and happen to be black, or white, ot believe in Vishnu, or are muslim, or right-wing, or left-wing be more harshly punished??? Simply because to you, they are wrong???
 

B_Stronzo

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2005
Posts
4,588
Media
0
Likes
130
Points
183
Location
Plimoth Plantation
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
GottaBigOne said:
Do you really think that making stuff illegal makes it actually go away???
No. But I think it makes the potential perpetrators think twice. It's a start.

Being a bigot is not a crime. Doing those things that I put in bold are, and those should be punished blindly. What's next for you? Should all people that commit crimes and happen to be black, or white, ot believe in Vishnu, or are muslim, or right-wing, or left-wing be more harshly punished??? Simply because to you, they are wrong???
Don't be absurd. I trust you're bright enough to realize the ridiculousness of that analogy.
 

D_Herin_Ghan

Account Disabled
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Posts
671
Media
0
Likes
4
Points
163
Sexuality
No Response
Stronzo said:
To EnglishGentleman:

As is so often the case with your countrymen, you write with consideration and eloquence. Would that my countrymen could speak with such civility when addressing one another.

My intent in starting this thread was only to inform. In doing so I'm being dissected and drawn and quartered by someone who wants to minimize the impact of a gay hate crime.

I'll have none of it ... or of him.

Are you fucking insane? I would NEVER justify or minimize a hate crime. It is against every single core value I hold. All I did was rebuke a blanket statement by you painting all Christians as religiously fanatical homophobes. Christianity is a religion of peace and tolerance, most of us hold those values.
 

GottaBigOne

Cherished Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2004
Posts
1,035
Media
13
Likes
255
Points
303
Age
42
Location
Dallas (Texas, United States)
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
Whats so ridiculous? You're saying that it is a crime to believe certain things... What is your justification then for not criminalizing all other beliefs you disagree with?

P.S. ...and please don't use arguments from intimidation, things like : You're too bright to not know... ever sane person knows... etc. It is not fitting.
 

Chuck64

Experimental Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Posts
1,578
Media
0
Likes
13
Points
508
Location
Rural Texas
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
GottaBigOne said:
Can someone explain to me why the classification of "hate crime" is needed? Should the motive of a crime really have that much of an effect on whether or not it should be punished harshly? Is it just to not punish some victims attacker as harsh as you could because the attacker's motivation wasn't racial,sexual, etc??
Violence is violence, murder is murder. "Hate crime" legislation is legislation against thought, against beliefs. It effectively says: "If you murder you get 25 years, if you murder while being a bigot you get 75 years. The extra fifty years is for being a bigot, not for an actual crime.

I understand your point. I'm still undecided. It really shouldn't matter who you're attacking when you're swinging a hatchet in a packed bar.

The issue is that throughout history, these "protected" groups have been the targets of violence at a much higher rate than the average American, and as such, these crimes need exceptionally harsh punishments to act as a deterrent. I'm not sure if I agree with the logic, and I haven't seen any crime statistics to say whether it works that way or not.

Stronzo - I hope you and all of your friends will continue to frequent the local gay bars. If we run back to our closets, they've won.

Oh, and the governor is a pussy for not speaking out about this the very next morning! It was an exceptionally violent crime, regardless of the targets.
 

B_Stronzo

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2005
Posts
4,588
Media
0
Likes
130
Points
183
Location
Plimoth Plantation
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Gottabigone?

Don't instruct my reality or my posts and I'll show you the same courtesy. Fair? I've explained myself fully and more than I think I should have been required. Beyond that you'll assume what you will no matter what. Have a ball. However, a word to the wise may be in order. You may not want to plan a visit to "PUZZLES" in New Bedford, Massachusetts. Some maniac may come in and mistake you for a patron. The dude carries weapons you know....

I'll restate this once: I began this thread to inform. Nothing more.

If you don't like my premise or think what happened here in Massachusetts is not indicative of a public scourge then I haven't the power or the inclination to change your mind. I'm living this horror by the hour and (speaking solely from my own perspective) I can tell you it's a pretty sad day when we are having a "back and forth" about how "bad" it is or to what degree punishable it is for someone to premeditatively go into a gay bar to slaughter patrons.

Seems like this is waaaaaaaaaaay outta 'whack' somehow..... (no pun intended)
 

EnglishGentleman

Experimental Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2006
Posts
341
Media
1
Likes
2
Points
161
Location
England UK
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Whoah boys, calm down, calm down.

<Jumps inbetween Stronzo & LINittanyLion holding them both at arms length>

We've strayed into very hot water here. It's very easy to cause and to take offence when on these topics. I should know, I've caused loads of rows in my time before learning the hard way how to say what I truly mean on the subject, without (i hope) calling anyone a prick at the same time.

Most faiths are pacifist in intent and a true follower of it's tenets would hopefully eschew violence, including verbal whenever possible. I'm no Christian, but even I know to "turn the other cheek" to consider what has just occurred, and whether I may be subject to a misunderstanding rather than an attack.

Stronzo - if you genuinely are a person who believes a christian is by nature a bigot then I, and many others would disagree. Yes, bigotry is upsetting, but it is no more than opinion until acted upon by such psychopaths as that in the story that started this thread. Your country's first amendment guarantees the right to free speech, so even if one feels another's opinions are extremely offensive he has the right to voice them. It's up to reasonable individuals to decide for themselves if they agree or not. Thankfully we all on this thread seem to agree that we dislike such gay-bashing, anti-semitic, anti-everything opinions, but to criminalize bigotry would by extension be to criminalise the very right to talk freely that we enjoy on LPSG.

<Stands back, nods at Stronzo & LINittanyLion and hopes for the best!>
 

B_Stronzo

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2005
Posts
4,588
Media
0
Likes
130
Points
183
Location
Plimoth Plantation
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
LINittanyLion said:
Are you insane?
Gee I hope not. That would suck.


All I did was rebuke a blanket statement by you painting all Christians as religiously fanatical homophobes.

HUH? Where, pray tell, precisely did I 'paint' all Christians with that brush of yours? I'm a practicing Episcopalian. Wouldn't quite be cricket of me now would it?

Christianity is a religion of peace and tolerance, most of us hold those values

History would not necessarily support that contention. And as for the second part of your contention I sorely hope that's true. However the current mood in this nation among the "Christian" fundamentalist community (who, by the way, speak of Roman Catholics in the same dismissive way they do about the homosexual community) suggests they hold little stock in 'tolerance'. You may want to seperate yourself from that over-all appellation.

Simply an FYI.
 

headbang8

Admired Member
Joined
May 15, 2004
Posts
1,618
Media
12
Likes
809
Points
333
Location
Munich (Bavaria, Germany)
Sexuality
80% Gay, 20% Straight
Gender
Male
GottaBigOne said:
Can someone explain to me why the classification of "hate crime" is needed? Should the motive of a crime really have that much of an effect on whether or not it should be punished harshly? Is it just to not punish some victims attacker as harsh as you could because the attacker's motivation wasn't racial,sexual, etc??
Violence is violence, murder is murder. "Hate crime" legislation is legislation against thought, against beliefs. It effectively says: "If you murder you get 25 years, if you murder while being a bigot you get 75 years. The extra fifty years is for being a bigot, not for an actual crime.

Actually, GBO, the criminal law is ALL about your motive when assessing the punishment for a crime. Whether that's good or bad is the legitimate subject of debate. But the law sees it so.

"Murder is murder"? Um, no. Killing is rarely murder, nowadays. More often than not, it's Manslaughter (or second degree murder, as Americans put it). And one of the ways that you can reduce murder to mansaughter or even involuntary manslaughter (Murder Three to Americans) is through the homosexual panic defense. For years, it has been effectively less of a crime to murder a gay man. So you can understand our enthusiasm for making it more of a crime, even if in a brutally logical sense it's over-correction.

And though most of us see a jail sentence as punishment, the rarefied mind of the legal scholar sees jail more as a deterrent. The more serious the problem (that is, the more prevalent) then the more likely the sentence will be severe. That's why they no longer hang people for stealing a horse.

For years, we've had a crime on the books called aggravated assault, which could be invoked when, for example, you punched a clergyman. If the punch killed him, it wouldn't be aggravated murder (at least not in the jurisdiction where I dropped out of law school). Hate crime bills seek, amongst other things, to "correct" that.

What do I believe, personally? I believe that no matter how high the maximum sentence, in practice few hate-criminals will spend more time in jail than their common-criminal counterparts. The legal system just don't work that way. (Unless mandatory sentencing is part of the bill. Is it?)

But it does send a very powerful social message. So I'm for it.
 

GottaBigOne

Cherished Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2004
Posts
1,035
Media
13
Likes
255
Points
303
Age
42
Location
Dallas (Texas, United States)
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
Stronzo, please do not think that it is my intention to somehow make light of "hate" crimes. I am doing exactly the opposite. It is my contention that all crime should be equally punished (harshly I might add) for what it is, not for what the criminals intentions were, unless of course a death was accidental, then I think intention comes into play, but once it has been decided that a murder has taken place, and by murder I do not mean "killing' i mean legal murder, then intention should have no relevance. I find it extremely repugnant that someone would go into a bar and start swinging at people with a hatchet and a gun. I find it equally repugnant that someone would think that gay people deserve to be killed for being gay. I just don't think the latter should be a crime. Maybe its because I belive in a little thing called "personal freedom".

Headbang: I said "murder is murder" not "killing is murder" get the distinction?
Punishment as a deterrant simply does not make any sense. Criminals do not think they will get caught, they think they will get away with it, so any punishment you devise for them is not going to have an affect on them, because they don't belive they will ever be punished.
 

EnglishGentleman

Experimental Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2006
Posts
341
Media
1
Likes
2
Points
161
Location
England UK
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Point taken Stronz - Your post must have gone up whilst I was still writing mine.

<takes another step back and bows respectfully to Stronzo>

I agree with HB8 though after what he has pointed out about the US legal system. ANY crime motivated by irrational, generalised hatred should, in my opinion, be more severely punished than a generic crime of similar method or result. Violence against someone 'cos they're gay, black, moslem, christian, ginger haired, funny looking or too clever is just plain wrong and that should be reflected in the penalties. I don't condone violence say in a mugging, but at least there is an end to the act. The perpetrator is seeking the wallet and valuables in a mugging, and uses violence to achieve that. It is not violence for it's own sake and bar some exceptions, no pleasure or glory is taken in the act.
 

GottaBigOne

Cherished Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2004
Posts
1,035
Media
13
Likes
255
Points
303
Age
42
Location
Dallas (Texas, United States)
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
EnglishGentleman said:
I don't condone violence say in a mugging, but at least there is an end to the act. The perpetrator is seeking the wallet and valuables in a mugging, and uses violence to achieve that. It is not violence for it's own sake and bar some exceptions, no pleasure or glory is taken in the act.

Wow!
The end sought after in a mugging is just as heinous as the end sought after in a "hate" crime. The end is to negate another's right to their life. The right to property is derived from a right to one's own life and to the product of one's own labor. Stealing someone's proprty is just as much of a violation of someone's right to life as is killing them for any reason. Saying that someone has a right to their life, but not a right to the products of their labor is the same as saying one has a right to life, but not a right to sustain that life.
Murder is WRONG! Plain and simple. And the motivation for murder is always WRONG as well. This is the problem with "hate" crime legislation. It gives semi-justification to other crimes not motivated by bigotry, as if to say they aren't as bad. Yes they are! All crime is bad....
 

B_Stronzo

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2005
Posts
4,588
Media
0
Likes
130
Points
183
Location
Plimoth Plantation
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
GottaBigOne said:
Stronzo, please do not think that it is my intention to somehow make light of "hate" crimes. I am doing exactly the opposite. It is my contention that all crime should be equally punished (harshly I might add) for what it is, not for what the criminals intentions were.

When we (the collective 'we' as in homosexuals.. from which I exclude you in this) all enjoy the same taken-for-granted privileges in this society that heterosexual Americans do perhaps your 'equal punishment' theory would be imaginable. Until then? I say nail the fuckers.

I find it extremely repugnant that someone would go into a bar and start swinging at people with a hatchet and a gun. I find it equally repugnant that someone would think that gay people deserve to be killed for being gay.
I'm encouraged and heartened to know it.

I just don't think the latter should be a crime. Maybe its because I belive in a little thing called "personal freedom".
When 'personal freedom' crosses the line to blind hatred enabling someone to 'hatchet' his way through a gay club I say we have a problem that needs addressing. This thing was perpetrated and executed by someone who believed he was justified in randomly executing anyone who fell into his notion of 'unacceptable' as dictated by a rather overtly homophobic society under which we suffer just now.

Geez, "personal freedom"?? I dunno. I think I'll go spray paint a synagogue.. that seems expressive and 'personal'. Clearly "Hate Crimes" are there and should be there to make these fucknuts think twice. God knows no one can get through to them with logic. So I say make the penalty more severe until there's no need to worry ourselves about the occurence.

Btw? No one could more completely express my sentiments than "headbang8" has. Dude just gets it.
 

GottaBigOne

Cherished Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2004
Posts
1,035
Media
13
Likes
255
Points
303
Age
42
Location
Dallas (Texas, United States)
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
stronzo said:
When we (the collective 'we' as in homosexuals.. from which I exclude you in this) all enjoy the same taken-for-granted privileges in this society that heterosexual Americans do perhaps your 'equal punishment' theory would be imaginable. Until then? I say nail the fuckers.
What do you mean by "priviledges". If you mean "priviledges" provided by law, I think I may be more on your side than you think, or maybe not, except that i feel that the government should not give heterosexuals priviledges in the first place. That would make everything equal as well. The government shouldn't be involved in marraige at all; CIVIL UNIONS FOR ALL!!

stronzo said:
Geez, "personal freedom"?? I dunno. I think I'll go spray paint a synagogue.. that seems expressive and 'personal'.
When I say "personal" freedom, I mean freedom of action as long as it doesn't involve the violation of another's rights. A church owner has a right to not have his property spray painted, therefore it is still a crime to spray paint anything on a church's property even if it isn't a swatstika or whatever.

The key is not to try to supress bigotry but to cut it out from the root. Making it illegal to express bigotry only makes people hide it, changing their minds, and showing them (through logic) how it doesn't make sense will actually keep them from being bigots.
 

EnglishGentleman

Experimental Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2006
Posts
341
Media
1
Likes
2
Points
161
Location
England UK
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Point taken Big One. All violence and murder is evil, but I have to stand by what I said. Perhaps we should not suggest that a hate motivated crime deserve a higher penalty, but that a separate offence be considered. That of acting manifestly upon one's prejudice.

I can only speak from my own experience. I have been violently attacked by someone who stole my cellphone and wallet. I have also been attacked equally as violently by people who didn't know me, but judged me worthy of a beating because of how I looked on one occasion, and for having opinions that differed from theirs on another.

In my own heart I pity the soul who stole from me, as much as I am angry to have been his victim. To the others who had no motive other than hate, I feel great disdain and no pity. I feel they need to be taught a lesson in tolerance.

I hope that clarifies my own views on the topic, which may be slightly less than objective due to my past.

To Stronzo - I ought to say that I do feel for anyone who has fear thrust into their lives as you have, and I can understand your feelings re the propagation of judgemental values in society. I'll defend anyone's right to voice their opinions, but not to manifest them in acts of violence or destruction.

Keep the pink flag flying.