US passes law against lynching; evangelicals campaign against it

[Tsar Bomba]

Yeah, and when you've got a mob of 50 guys who kill someone, they just go "lolololol you can't prove which one of us actually killed him".

Name one case in the last 40 years where this defense strategy was used.

[Zaktar]

Murder is illegal. This seems like a redundant law and a pointless forum thread.

Let's suppose it's true that the law is redundant (good reasons why it isn't have already been provided, but let's suppose that for a moment anyway)... why would a group of ostensibly religious people campaign against it? Seems worth discussing to me, not pointless.

[cparle87]

Damn, I thought this was just being changed as a modernization of law. In the UK there are still some laws about shooting a Welshman in a certain town/city centre or on a hill from a certain distance away. It's obviously illegal, but the archaic law was never repealed either. Frankly I hope we don't repeal laws like that, which are so integral to history since modern law obviously supersedes them.

There's a website called dumblaws.com. It's a hoot to read. Like needing a permit to ride elephants down the street in LA.

[josykay]

Murder is illegal. This seems like a redundant law and a pointless forum thread.

Murder is usually a state crime. Lynching is now a federal crime, making it much harder to avoid justice, because prosecution is, for what ever reason not willing to charge suspects accordingly, which was the reason why lynchers avoided punishment in the past.

[Mihalik]

It's murder, why do you need a new law.

You can get the death penalty for lynching someone, or shooting someone, or running over someone in your car.

The concept of aggravating circumstances exists for a reason. The sort of vicious premeditation required to target someone for lynching (lynching is not ALWAYS lethal) says something about the people committing the crime and warrants harsher legal repercussions.

[Raelbo]

Literally upset that it's now illegal to lynch gay people.

I don't think that's it actually.

Much though I find people like him and his organisation to be an apalling blight on the human race, I don't think his issue is around not being able to lynch gay people per se, but in the precedent being set that gay people are being included in legislation designed to protect the rights of minority groups. His whole camel story is basically saying that he is arguing that this is a slippery slope.

Not that any of this actually makes his opposition to the bill any more acceptable.

[Perkunas]

Pretty sure Islam would be just as on board with them if they weren't at each other's throats, but then again the left doesn't want to say that just like that racist wouldn't condemn the remarks that Farrakhan makes yet again.

I like how you act like you understand the entire consensus of a group. I don't have any qualms about saying Farrakhan is an utter nutjob and should be treated as such.

[AwkwardSquirtle]

I don't think that's it actually.

Much though I find people like him and his organisation to be an apalling blight on the human race, I don't think his issue is around not being able to lynch gay people per se, but in the precedent being set that gay people are being included in legislation designed to protect the rights of minority groups. His whole camel story is basically saying that he is arguing that this is a slippery slope.

Not that any of this actually makes his opposition to the bill any more acceptable.

If you're arguing that they shouldn't be protected in legislation that prevents them from being lynched, you're arguing that it's ok to lynch them.

[Coolthulhu]

A law against lynching in 2018 seems rather out of time. I assume they wanted to make it more specific, because surely there must've already been laws in place to prevent lynchings?

[Surreality]

again, under this law, a "lynching" is anyone being targeted by 2+ people for race/national origin/gender/sexual orientation/gender identity/religion/disability, and being attacked and injured over it.

Two guys punching a third guy outside a bar for "being a fag" is a lynching.

I'm sure all of those people that had far worse lynchings, like the ones the resulted in their violent deaths completely agree with you. I have to say, despite what the idiot "law" may say, getting punched in the face by 2 people for being a "fag" isn't a lynching. It's bullying. Just calling something a name or giving it some kind of label doesn't automatically just make it so. Much in the same way that just saying words doesn't automatically make them truth.

[Jetstream]

It's murder, why do you need a new law.

You can get the death penalty for lynching someone, or shooting someone, or running over someone in your car.

Because as a Federal crime, the Federal government can prosecute it. Murder can only be prosecuted by the States, unless it happens in certain circumstances that makes it a Federal crime.

Like lynching. Now.

[Raelbo]

If you're arguing that they shouldn't be protected in legislation that prevents them from being lynched, you're arguing that it's ok to lynch them.

No it isn't. That's literally the essence of a strawman fallacy.

The guy is opposed to the use of "gender identity language" in the bill. For what it's worth, they had exactly the same issue with a trade agreement with Mexico and Canada.

PS: I am not in any way trying to defend what "Liberty Counsel" is trying to do here, just pointing out that what you're attacking them for (saying it's ok to lynch gays) isn't actually what they're guilty of (ie wanting to remove the use of any language in legislation that legitimises the right of people to identify as gay). It doesn't change the fact that they're still a bunch of douchebags though.

[Everwake]

If you read the article (specifically the camel analogy), you can see that they are bitching about the language usage in the bill and not the actual lynching part. These evangelicals are worried that once sexual minorities get special reference in a bill like this, that it will lead to special protection in future bills.

[Endus]

If you read the article (specifically the camel analogy), you can see that they are bitching about the language usage in the bill and not the actual lynching part. These evangelicals are worried that once sexual minorities get special reference in a bill like this, that it will lead to special protection in future bills.

And, for at least the third time, this is a lie. It's a deliberate and malicious untruth. This is not why they're opposing the bill.

And how can I be so confident?

Because the language usage about sexual orientation and gender/gender identity is already in the US Code, in exactly the same phrasing.

Here's the new bill; https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-...l/3178/text/es

Here's the bit that contains references to sexual orientation, gender, and gender identity;

“(2) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RELIGION, NATIONAL ORIGIN, GENDER, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY, OR DISABILITY.—

“(A) IN GENERAL.—If 2 or more persons, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B), willfully cause bodily injury to any other person because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person—


“(i) each shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if bodily injury results from the offense; or


“(ii) each shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if death results from the offense or if the offense includes kidnapping or aggravated sexual abuse.

The above is the only section that references "sexual orientation" or "gender" in any way, in the new bill. And I really didn't need to include sections (i) and (ii); I only did so to include the whole bit. So the first sections are what's really important. The underline, we'll get to in a moment.

Now, that was the new 18 USC § 250.

Why don't we check the immediately preceding section of US Code? 18 USC § 249?

Here we go; https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/249

Here's the relevant section;

(2) Offenses involving actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.—

(A)In general.—Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B) or paragraph (3), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person—

The first line, subsection (2) of both laws, is identical, word for word.

The last section of clause (A) in both laws, helpfully underlined, is also word for word identical.

And that first line, and the underlined section, are the only points where language about sexual orientation, gender, or gender identity exist, in the lynching bill. It is not new language. It is copy and pasted from existing law; 18 USC § 249. Anyone trying to tell you they're opposing the lynching bill including LGBT language to keep it out of law is a liar. It really is that simple. This isn't even pulling from some obscure section of law; it's the immediately preceding portion of the US Code, to which the lynching bill would be added and would immediately follow.

This isn't about inviting a camel into the tent. It's the camel's tent. They're trying to force it out of its own tent, because they hate camels.

Where "camels" is "LGBT people", because using an analogy doesn't make this less bigoted.

[Everwake]

Well, Endus, why don't you ask them what their intentions are?

[Endus]

Well, Endus, why don't you ask them what their intentions are?

I don't see the need, when they've already publicly stated their position, which is an observable and objective falsehood.

Their explanation is false. The only other real alternative is outright homophobia.

[Brubear]

Except that has nothing to do with what Endus is claiming.

If you can understand the difference between those two, especially between Murder 1/2 and Voluntary Manslaughter, then you pretty much already understand Mens Rea, as it's what drives the difference between murder and manslaughter, as well as the difference between voluntary and involuntary manslaughter (the difference between murder 1 and two is whether or not it was premeditated, which still sort of falls under mens rea as it's the difference between purposeful intent and knowing intent).

Here's a good breakdown of the concept and ways in which it's applied, and you should notice some parallels within the MPC application and the degrees of murder/manslaugther. Again, though, if you can understand why voluntary manslaughter isn't the same thing as murder, then you already understand the concept of mens rea, you just might not know that's what it is.

[Logwyn]

Why is it that people, like yourself, jump into the thread to express an opinion like this while clearly not even looking at the actual bill in question?

I'm not even going to respond to the particulars, here, because you're way outside reality and arguing based on stuff you made up in your own head.

There's nothing in this law that isn't already covered in current laws on the books. Nothing. I'm sorry you can't see this.

"If 2 or more persons willfully cause bodily injury to any other person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person—"

Assualt and Battery. Next is murder. You can't tell me that isn't the books. This law adds nothing thats not already there. You don't need a law on the books

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1111 here is the law on murder from the Federal code.

"Whoever is guilty of murder in the first degree shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for life;

Whoever is guilty of murder in the second degree, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life." Thats thh punishment for murder.

Here is the punishment for killing during lyching

“(ii) each shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if death results from the offense or if the offense includes kidnapping or aggravated sexual abuse."

Its the exact same in the "new" bill. All this bill is a political feel good bill.

[Thage]

It means, that Lynching is now officially by default a hate crime, and a federal crime. Which is not the case for murder asfar as I understand.

This. Lynching (which has a historic basis in being racially motivated, and a more recent basis in being rooted in race or sexual orientation/gender identity) was formerly covered under good ol' murder, but now it's being classified as a hate crime considering the context lynchings most often happen in.

[Endus]

There's nothing in this law that isn't already covered in current laws on the books. Nothing. I'm sorry you can't see this.

That isn't how law works. It isn't about whether it's "already covered" or not. Severity of the crime in question warrants different treatment. This is why we have "murder" but also "manslaughter", even though both cover homicides.

No, nothing in existing federal law covered what this bill does. That's straight-up false. Objectively so. It isn't something we can have a difference of opinion over; this was not covered, and your claims that it was are wrong.

"If 2 or more persons willfully cause bodily injury to any other person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person—"

Assualt and Battery. Next is murder. You can't tell me that isn't the books. This law adds nothing thats not already there. You don't need a law on the books

See above. It's not the same as basic assault and battery, in the same way that murder is not the same as manslaughter. There are contextual distinctions that warrant a more severe charge. Again, literally how the law works basically everywhere.

Or should grand theft auto and shoplifting a candy bar carry the same penalty, in your eyes? Is that seriously your argument?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1111 here is the law on murder from the Federal code.

"Whoever is guilty of murder in the first degree shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for life;

Whoever is guilty of murder in the second degree, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life." Thats thh punishment for murder.

Here is the punishment for killing during lyching

“(ii) each shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if death results from the offense or if the offense includes kidnapping or aggravated sexual abuse."

Its the exact same in the "new" bill. All this bill is a political feel good bill.

The difference being that, for a murder charge, you need to be the one doing the killing. If you just shoved a guy and your buddies stabbed him to death, you might get charged as an accessory, but not murder, itself.

With the lynching bill, you participated in the crime (the lynching), it led to death, so whether you're the one who actually contributed a killing blow is irrelevant.

So no. It clearly isn't the same, as any cursory reading shows. You seem to have missed that in your rush to judgement.