Page 1 of 3
1
2
3
LastLast
  1. #1

    Anti gay violence not anti gay when victim is not gay?

    Two guys walked down the street and a group of 4 young people shouted 'gays' at them and verbal abuse. The two boys approached the group. One of the boys was beaten and the other was pushed, fell and broke his cheekbone.

    Police now claim it wasn't anti gay violence, as the boys were neither a couple nor gay.

    So apparently intent doesn't matter, as long as you were wrong and your victim wasn't gay, it wasn't anti gay violence, even though the violence clearly occurred because the group thought the boys were gay.

    Do you agree? (I don't, if it wasn't obvious. Intent is what matters. If you beat someone because you think they are gay and you hate gays, it's anti gay violence in my book, whether the victim is actually gay or not.)

  2. #2
    Deleted
    Well, yelling gays at people and then beating them, doesn't necessarily mean that the beating was for being gay (would need a tad more than just that yelling). The same would be yelling motherfucker, you'd never account that as being a beating over incest, and the same can really be said for a lot of other slurs thrown at people.

    If the beating was because they thought they were gay, then yeah that should probably fall under hate crime, even if they were wrong.
    Last edited by mmoccd6b5b3be4; 2016-12-05 at 03:45 PM.

  3. #3
    Yeah, if they weren't gay it can't be an anti-gay hate crime I would say. It wouldn't make any sense.
    .

    "This will be a fight against overwhelming odds from which survival cannot be expected. We will do what damage we can."

    -- Capt. Copeland

  4. #4
    The Insane Revi's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    The land of the ice and snow.
    Posts
    15,628
    I don't think it should matter if they did it because they thought they were gay in the first place.

    Guy who get's beat up for dorky doesn't hurt less than guy who get's beat up for being gay. There's no reason it should be more acceptable to beat up straight people.

    I do agree that intent should matter in sentencing, but the relevant intent here should be that they were the aggressors in an assault.
    Last edited by Revi; 2016-12-05 at 03:51 PM.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Amerissis View Post
    Two guys walked down the street and a group of 4 young people shouted 'gays' at them and verbal abuse. The two boys approached the group. One of the boys was beaten and the other was pushed, fell and broke his cheekbone.

    Police now claim it wasn't anti gay violence, as the boys were neither a couple nor gay.

    So apparently intent doesn't matter, as long as you were wrong and your victim wasn't gay, it wasn't anti gay violence, even though the violence clearly occurred because the group thought the boys were gay.

    Do you agree? (I don't, if it wasn't obvious. Intent is what matters. If you beat someone because you think they are gay and you hate gays, it's anti gay violence in my book, whether the victim is actually gay or not.)
    What difference does it make? Violence is the same amount of wrong, no matter who the victim is.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Hubcap View Post
    Yeah, if they weren't gay it can't be an anti-gay hate crime I would say. It wouldn't make any sense.
    Of course it would. If someone beats up someone that 'looks like' a Muslim while shouting Islamophobic slurs, and it turns out the victim was Hindu, it's still an anti-Islamic hate crime. Intent is key in considering hate crimes; the emotions of the perpetrators is the whole point of the issue. Whether or not their victims 'deserve' to be the focus of their anger is irrelevant. If the thought process is 'I hate gays, that guy looks gay, I'm gonna beat up that gay guy', then it's a hate crime. End of story.

  7. #7
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Tijuana View Post
    What difference does it make? Violence is the same amount of wrong, no matter who the victim is.
    In a perfect world of sensibility and rationality, yes. In the real world where we live, absolutely not

  8. #8
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Tijuana View Post
    What difference does it make? Violence is the same amount of wrong, no matter who the victim is.
    Minorities are more subjected to abuses so that's why we made those law to punish harsher who abuses minorites. It's common sense really.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by masteryuri View Post
    Minorities are more subjected to abuses so that's why we made those law to punish harsher who abuses minorites. It's common sense really.
    No it's not. It's unequal protection under the law, and violates the constitution, imo.

  10. #10
    Scarab Lord
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario
    Posts
    4,664
    Quote Originally Posted by Tijuana View Post
    What difference does it make? Violence is the same amount of wrong, no matter who the victim is.
    It's about intent.

    Murder is the same amount of wrong, no matter who the victim is but the law still takes into account intent when determining the severity of it. Heat of the moment, emotional murder, carries a lesser penalty than premeditated murder, for example. Just like punching a guy for calling your mother a whore would carry less of a penalty than punching a guy for being gay.
    (This signature was removed for violation of the Avatar & Signature Guidelines)

  11. #11
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Tijuana View Post
    No it's not. It's unequal protection under the law, and violates the constitution, imo.
    It's not unequal, but feel free to live in your fantasy world. Maybe if people stopped discriminate those few in numbers than them then we wouldn't need anti-hate crimes law.

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by masteryuri View Post
    Minorities are more subjected to abuses so that's why we made those law to punish harsher who abuses minorites. It's common sense really.
    Seems like there's a categorical error at play here. You're equating (maybe not the best word) the number of crimes with a severity in punishment to one individual committing a crime.

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Tyrianth View Post
    It's about intent.

    Murder is the same amount of wrong, no matter who the victim is but the law still takes into account intent when determining the severity of it. Heat of the moment, emotional murder, carries a lesser penalty than premeditated murder, for example. Just like punching a guy for calling your mother a whore would carry less of a penalty than punching a guy for being gay.
    Yeah, I think those laws are wrong. I'm not sure where the original story is from, but these laws violate the constitution in the US, imo.

  14. #14
    Scarab Lord
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario
    Posts
    4,664
    Quote Originally Posted by Tijuana View Post
    No it's not. It's unequal protection under the law, and violates the constitution, imo.
    Do you feel the same about the Americans with Disability Act? It gives benefits to disabled Americans that most others wouldn't get. Is that also unconstitutional?
    (This signature was removed for violation of the Avatar & Signature Guidelines)

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by masteryuri View Post
    It's not unequal, but feel free to live in your fantasy world. Maybe if people stopped discriminate those few in numbers than them then we wouldn't need anti-hate crimes law.
    How is it equal that killing my neighbor is a more severe crime than killing me?

  16. #16
    Scarab Lord
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario
    Posts
    4,664
    Quote Originally Posted by Tijuana View Post
    Yeah, I think those laws are wrong. I'm not sure where the original story is from, but these laws violate the constitution in the US, imo.
    Taking into account intent is not unconstitutional. Your opinion does now change that. They very foundation of any modern justice system is based around "intent".
    (This signature was removed for violation of the Avatar & Signature Guidelines)

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Tyrianth View Post
    Taking into account intent is not unconstitutional. Your opinion does now change that. They very foundation of any modern justice system is based around "intent".
    I can still have my opinion. That's why I stated that it was my opinion.

  18. #18
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Raybourne View Post
    Seems like there's a categorical error at play here. You're equating (maybe not the best word) the number of crimes with a severity in punishment to one individual committing a crime.
    You misunderstood me, it's not about the numbers of crimes, it's the risk of people belonging to minorities to being subjected to crimes that matters.

  19. #19
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Tijuana View Post
    I can still have my opinion. That's why I stated that it was my opinion.
    You still claim that violate the consistution, even if intent is a great focus of it.

  20. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Bovinity Divinity View Post
    Perhaps, but slapping the "opinion" label on things doesn't mean they can't just be wrong.
    Yeah, actually it does. In fact, that is EXACTLY what opinion means.

    In MY OPINION, the constitution should be interpreted to see hate crime laws as unequal protection under the law. Nobody here is under any delusion that I am on the SCOTUS. Therefore, you telling me my opinion is something other than that, is just nonsense.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •