GOP Rep: Matthew Shepard Was A Hoax

[houtx48]

you can't tell me that she did not know Matthew Shepard's was there at the hearing, that only leaves congresswoman Foxx to be dumb as box of rocks or she is a mean vindictive old cunt. Old Oklahoma Sally now has a pardoner.

 

[tripod]

you can't tell me that she did not know Matthew Shepard's was there at the hearing, that only leaves congresswoman Foxx to be dumb as box of rocks or she is a mean vindictive old cunt. Old Oklahoma Sally now has a pardoner.

She is both dumb and mean... I looked right in her eyes and she did not have a soul. She stared me down like I wasn't even allowed to look at her.

 

[thickfriz]

Why do we need hate crime legislation? Isn't the act or murder enough to convict or does it matter what person they murdered. All crime is bad why hate crime bill put them ALL away forever. Murder is murder rape is rape stealing is stealing bombing is bombing doesnt matter the color of skin or sexual orientation of the victim

 

[faceking]

Why do we need hate crime legislation? Isn't the act or murder enough to convict or does it matter what person they murdered. All crime is bad why hate crime bill put them ALL away forever. Murder is murder rape is rape stealing is stealing bombing is bombing doesnt matter the color of skin or sexual orientation of the victim

It makes one act of murder done in the same manner as another act of murder more significant. Or so I'm told.

 

[Industrialsize]

Why do we need hate crime legislation? Isn't the act or murder enough to convict or does it matter what person they murdered. All crime is bad why hate crime bill put them ALL away forever. Murder is murder rape is rape stealing is stealing bombing is bombing doesnt matter the color of skin or sexual orientation of the victim

I'm gay, someone beats me up badly. It's a crime with prescribed punishment. Now, someone beats me up while yelling I hate you fucking faggots, gay people must die. It's still assault but now it is a hate crime which carries a stronger punishment. That's why we need hate crimes legislation.

 

[eunectes]

The basic idea is that when one overtly victimizes a person primarily because of a minority status, be it racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual, then it is not merely a crime against that person but against all members of that group. So for example, a KKK lynching of a black person would be a hate crime, carrying greater penalty than murdering the same person if done without the motive to instill fear in other black people.

If it seems odd that intention be taken into account, then there would be no reason to distinguish between 1st degree homicide ('malice aforethought') and negligent manslaughter.

 

[tripod]

We need hate crime legislation because it is a heinous act that requires a sufficient deterrent beyond the normal variety in order to keep society safe from violent deranged lunatics.

 

[B_Nick4444]

what she said

It is sad anytime a innocent person is harmed much less killed for ANY reason. I have no idea what the "facts" of that legal case are. But look at the bigger picture. And one that the congressman was trying to make. ANYTIME ANY government can arrest, prosecute and take away anyones liberty FOR OUR THOUGHTS.....it is utter insanity in a nation of free people. Let's also look at the rhetorical efforts here to hide that glaringly obvious government intrusion....name it after this poor young man and WHO could have the heart to vote against it? This is shameful. I know people want to punish people for such hateful callous things. But let us not throw away our liberty and protection from the State in Matthews name or anyones name. These people are already going to be imprisioned for their actual physical criminal acts and I am glad. However, I hope we all don't run amuck and give the gov't power to punish any of us for our thoughts! That would be a crime against us and our children for all time.

 

[mikeyh9in]

What color is the sky in your world?

SCsoccerMom, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt because 1) you live in a state that is not exactly progressively thinking, 2) you probably do not know any gay people, 3) you have never been a victim of violence entirely because of your sexual orientation. Because if you did live in a progressive community, or had any gay friends, or had been violence invicted on you, you would think differently.

Do you know that there are many places in this world where being gay is punishable by DEATH?

There are many places in the US, where just walking down the street you are will be called "fag."

I urge you SCsoccermom to *try* to walk for one day in the shoes of someone not as fortunate as you.

I know you will find this offensive, but I do not mean it that way, but I truly hope that one of your kids is blessed to be Gay.

It is sad anytime a innocent person is harmed much less killed for ANY reason. I have no idea what the "facts" of that legal case are. But look at the bigger picture. And one that the congressman was trying to make. ANYTIME ANY government can arrest, prosecute and take away anyones liberty FOR OUR THOUGHTS.....it is utter insanity in a nation of free people. Let's also look at the rhetorical efforts here to hide that glaringly obvious government intrusion....name it after this poor young man and WHO could have the heart to vote against it? This is shameful. I know people want to punish people for such hateful callous things. But let us not throw away our liberty and protection from the State in Matthews name or anyones name. These people are already going to be imprisioned for their actual physical criminal acts and I am glad. However, I hope we all don't run amuck and give the gov't power to punish any of us for our thoughts! That would be a crime against us and our children for all time.

 

[SilverTrain]

It is sad anytime a innocent person is harmed much less killed for ANY reason. I have no idea what the "facts" of that legal case are. But look at the bigger picture. And one that the congressman was trying to make. ANYTIME ANY government can arrest, prosecute and take away anyones liberty FOR OUR THOUGHTS.....it is utter insanity in a nation of free people. Let's also look at the rhetorical efforts here to hide that glaringly obvious government intrusion....name it after this poor young man and WHO could have the heart to vote against it? This is shameful. I know people want to punish people for such hateful callous things. But let us not throw away our liberty and protection from the State in Matthews name or anyones name. These people are already going to be imprisioned for their actual physical criminal acts and I am glad. However, I hope we all don't run amuck and give the gov't power to punish any of us for our thoughts! That would be a crime against us and our children for all time.

Unless it's a strict liability offense (like, say, running a stop sign or statutory rape) every criminal prosecution involves punishing someone for his or her thoughts. Mens rea (criminal intent) is an essential element of criminal culpability. As is an actus reus (criminal act).

 

[houtx48]

maybe if someone bitch slapped that walleyed troll Foxx her eye would come uncrossed.

 

[B_Nick4444]

Unless it's a strict liability offense (like, say, running a stop sign or statutory rape) every criminal prosecution involves punishing someone for his or her thoughts. Mens rea (criminal intent) is an essential element of criminal culpability. As is an actus reus (criminal act).

not quite -- the question of intent went to the issue of guilt -- did the person committing the act, know and understand that committing that act would result in death?

beyond that, there was no interest or concern with their "thoughts"

thought and speech have always been protected

that is, until "hate crimes" legislation was enacted

compare:

Sandra Day O'Connor, states: "burning a cross does not inevitably convey a message of intimidation." Paradoxically, she then asserts "often the cross burner intends that (people) fear for their lives," which is a very "powerful" message of intimidation. The wording of her opinion for the majority stipulates that the First Amendment "prohibits states from presuming that every act of cross burning has an illicit motive."

hate crimes legislation represents an impermissible attempt by governments to regulate thought and feeling

 

[B_Nick4444]

SCsoccerMom, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt because 1) you live in a state that is not exactly progressively thinking,

oh, wow!

Lenin is probably kicking his heels in his grave, knowing that his notion (What Is To Be Done? BURNING QUESTIONS of our MOVEMENT) of the vanguard elite leading the masses through their messianic vision is still around and active, telling us what is the proper course of belief and action

 

[cruztbone]

the fact of the matter is, notwithstanding morons like Congresswoman Virginia Foxx of North Carolina, the hate crimes legislation will become law by this summer. The senate will pass it and President Obama will sign it.
Finally, the US government will go on record as enforcing what it says it believes in the 14 amendment to the US constitution. At last.

 

[Meniscus]

How like North Carolina. I guess she's trying to fill the void left by Jesse Helms. Sad, though.

Coincidentally, Matthew Shepard--who for a time attended college in North Carolina--was interviewed in the documentary "Dear Jesse."
Dear Jesse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here's the interview.
YouTube - Matthew Shepard

 

[invisibleman]

All I can say about Virginia Fuxx can only be expressed in picture.

:biggrin1:

 

[faceking]

so why is noone going after ABC for the report she cites?

 

[SilverTrain]

not quite -- the question of intent went to the issue of guilt -- did the person committing the act, know and understand that committing that act would result in death?

beyond that, there was no interest or concern with their "thoughts"

thought and speech have always been protected

that is, until "hate crimes" legislation was enacted

compare:

Sandra Day O'Connor, states: "burning a cross does not inevitably convey a message of intimidation." Paradoxically, she then asserts "often the cross burner intends that (people) fear for their lives," which is a very "powerful" message of intimidation. The wording of her opinion for the majority stipulates that the First Amendment "prohibits states from presuming that every act of cross burning has an illicit motive."

hate crimes legislation represents an impermissible attempt by governments to regulate thought and feeling

"not quite"?

"the question of intent went to the issue of guilt". Yeah, that's exactly what I was saying. Ya maroon.

I'm guilty if I intend to assault and batter a person. That's regulating my thoughts. If I didn't have a criminal thought, I wouldn't be subject to prosecution therefore.

If I intend to assault and batter a person because they are gay, or of african descent, I've been more discriminating in my criminal thinking. And it's arguable that it's more heinous to harm someone purely because of one (or more) of their particular human characteristics, than to harm someone for garden variety malice or avarice.

Don't bring 1st amendment stuff into this. It's N/A. Criminal thoughts have never been protected.

Maroons.

 

[B_Nick4444]

not at all

admittedly in law school, I took only one course in criminal law, and then only because it was required

the only "thought" going to guilt was knowing that the act (e.g., aiming a gun, pulling the trigger) would result in the killing or serious injury was the only basis for finding guilt

the issue also was examined in constitutional law, for the obvious reason that it is governmental authorities that prosecute criminal cases, and the question of course, what proscribes and legitimates governmental power and authority

hence, the consistent findings by the US Supreme Court, along the lines in the quotation

so I shall say it again, "hate crimes" are only illegitimate attempts by demagogues to win support, and represent illegitimate attempts to regulate thought, feeling, speech, and action

as I'm always saying, the left represents the greatest threat to our ideals and freedoms

"not quite"?

"the question of intent went to the issue of guilt". Yeah, that's exactly what I was saying. Ya maroon.

I'm guilty if I intend to assault and batter a person. That's regulating my thoughts. If I didn't have a criminal thought, I wouldn't be subject to prosecution therefore.

If I intend to assault and batter a person because they are gay, or of african descent, I've been more discriminating in my criminal thinking. And it's arguable that it's more heinous to harm someone purely because of one (or more) of their particular human characteristics, than to harm someone for garden variety malice or avarice.

Don't bring 1st amendment stuff into this. It's N/A. Criminal thoughts have never been protected.

Maroons.

 

[midlifebear]

Dear Nick666:

Just exactly when was it you sold your soul to become such a sad little goose-stepper? The "Thought Police" are not on patrol when it comes to charging and convicting a person of a hate crime.

so I shall say it again, "hate crimes" are only illegitimate attempts by demagogues to win support, and represent illegitimate attempts to regulate thought, feeling, speech, and action

Well you can repeat that faulty line of thinking as much as you want, but it will never be true. If someone were to seek you out and wish you harm specifically because you promote yourself as some kind of attorney because they hate lawyers, that would not be a hate crime? Pray tell, what other nonsensical foggy rationalizations can you whip up? For someone who obviously (from the majority of your quippy posts) cannot tell the difference between a transitive or intransitive verb, I find it hard to believe you completed law school or passed the Bar Exams in any State in the USA.