The Conservative Cave

Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: franksolich on May 18, 2009, 05:34:18 PM

Title: primitives discuss ostensible hate crime
Post by: franksolich on May 18, 2009, 05:34:18 PM
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5659368

Oh my.

Quote
timtom  (1000+ posts)        Fri May-15-09 06:53 AM
Original message
 
It grieves me much to bring this news, but it affects us all

"Was it a hate crime? Gay Delray Beach man shot dead in his driveway" is the headline.

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/content/local_ne...

I cried over this.

God help us all.

franksolich suspects the percentage of gayieties homocided is, coincidentally the same percentage as the gayieties in the general population, so there's nothing more "special" about it than those who are deaf, who are homocided probably in exact proportion to their numbers in the general population.

Anyway.

The cboy4 primitive seems bent out of shape, for some peculiar reason; he's not in his usual merry carefree relaxed mood.

Quote
cboy4  (1000+ posts)        Fri May-15-09 07:03 AM
Response to Original message
 
4. I just love listening to the cops when they say they don't have "any particular evidence pointing to a hate crime."

Could it not be a hate crime?

Of course.

But the guy was shot multiple times and nothing was taken?

And he's gay?

That's suspicious to me.

And that sounds like circumstantial evidence of a potential hate crime to me.

Which of course is evidence.

I'll give the police department the benefit of the doubt for now, but let's hope they don't drop the ball on this one.

Quote
timtom  (1000+ posts)        Fri May-15-09 07:05 AM
Response to Reply #4
 
6. I agree

This is an obvious instance of a hate crime.

Quote
pnwmom  (1000+ posts)      Fri May-15-09 07:54 AM
Response to Reply #6
 
9. If a straight person was found shot several times, we wouldn't automatically call it a hate crime. Not without some evidence pointing in that direction.

We might call it a "drive-by shooting." Or wonder if it was a mob killing.

Are you sure the only reason that a gay guy could be killed would be because he was gay?

Quote
Sentath  (982 posts)      Fri May-15-09 10:47 AM
Response to Reply #9
 
15. "Are you sure the only reason that a gay guy could be killed would be because he was gay?"

No.

But it is the data point that sticks up highest so far. Until something more likely to attract negative attention comes to light... *shrug* One works with the data available.

Quote
cboy4  (1000+ posts)        Fri May-15-09 03:16 PM
Response to Reply #9
 
21. Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.
 
Did you miss the part where I prefaced my comments by saying, "Could this not be a hate crime? Of course."?

By the way, I don't need to see the lab tests of the red stain on my shirt after I eat ketchup, definitively identifying the substance as such, to know that it came from my fries.

It's called common sense.

You can call the multiple shooting of a minority, on his driveway, with nothing taken, whatever silly name you want.

Quote
Fire_Medic_Dave (1000+ posts)      Sat May-16-09 02:39 AM
Response to Reply #21
 
36. Statistics show most minorities are killed by someone of the same minority group. 

Quote
cboy4  (1000+ posts)        Sat May-16-09 03:43 AM
Response to Reply #36

37. Right, but when a black person is hanging from a tree, I don't start thinking a black person did it.

And when a gay person is beaten to death outside a gay club with a baseball bat, I don't start thinking a gay person did it.

100 percent of all hate crimes are committed by someone who hates.

That we know, without having to look at any FBI statistics like the ones you cited that hardly paint the full picture.

Oh, I dunno.  Maybe it was just another one of those drug deals that went bad.

Quote
Fire_Medic_Dave (1000+ posts)      Sat May-16-09 01:11 PM
Response to Reply #37
 
39. I must have missed the part where he was killed by skinheads with baseball bats.

Quote
cboy4  (1000+ posts)        Sat May-16-09 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #39
 
40. No, all you missed was the point.

Quote
Fire_Medic_Dave (1000+ posts)      Sat May-16-09 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #40

41. I got it completely you have tried to turn a shooting into something there is no evidence it is.

Quote
cboy4  (1000+ posts)        Sat May-16-09 05:43 PM
Response to Reply #41
 
42. You fail again.

Quote
Fire_Medic_Dave (1000+ posts)      Sat May-16-09 08:08 PM
Response to Reply #42

43. What evidence of a hate crime is there other than the sexuality of the victim?

Quote
cboy4  (1000+ posts)        Sun May-17-09 12:31 AM
Response to Reply #43
 
45. The more important question is why are you so bent out of shape because I suspect this is a hate crime?

What harm does it do to start with the premise that this is a hate crime and work backwards?

Who is hurt by my insinuation that this is a hate crime because robbery doesn't appear to be the motive?

Right wingers are notoriously anti-hate crime anything and don't think there should be enhancements.

You come across as very, very insensitive and uncaring about the real life dangers gay people face in society by your fierce passive aggressive comments that this isn't a hate crime.

Why?

Quote
Fire_Medic_Dave (1000+ posts)      Sun May-17-09 12:43 AM
Response to Reply #45
 
48. It may very well be, personally I'll wait and see what evidence the police find.

Sorry I may be a little to blunt for you. My gay friends appreciate it.

Quote
cboy4  (1000+ posts)        Sun May-17-09 12:57 AM
Response to Reply #48
 
51. LOL. I'm not irritated because you're blunt. I'm irritated that you sound like a right-winger.

And I know there's no way on earth you can be, isn't that true?

BTW, I doubt your gay friends appreciate you acting so casual about a possible hate crime against another gay person.

Quote
Fire_Medic_Dave (1000+ posts)      Sun May-17-09 01:16 AM
Response to Reply #51
 
54. Aren't we sensitive?

I hope they find the perpetrator and send him to jail for as long as the law allows hate crime or not. You wouldn't fit in very well with my gay friends they can actually have rational discussions without resorting to name calling.

Quote
Sebastian Doyle (1000+ posts)      Sun May-17-09 12:46 AM
Response to Reply #45
 
49. He's upset because it was a shooting.

All his buddies in the Gungeon don't want to hear about hate crimes committed with guns.

Quote
cboy4  (1000+ posts)        Sun May-17-09 12:53 AM
Response to Reply #49
 
50. Ah, that's why. I knew there had to be an explanation.

Quote
Fire_Medic_Dave (1000+ posts)      Sun May-17-09 01:14 AM
Response to Reply #49
 
53. No different from hate crimes committed with other weapons.

Most are committed with illegally possessed firearms anyway. Crimes committed with firearms should receive much longer sentences. Hate crimes should receive longer sentences also.

Oh, I dunno.

I still think it was something like that deal out in Wyoming some years ago, some sort of drug deal that went bad.
Title: Re: primitives discuss ostensible hate crime
Post by: USA4ME on May 18, 2009, 06:20:01 PM
Quote from:
cboy4

What harm does it do to start with the premise that this is a hate crime and work backwards?

These are the same idiots who call us "fascists," right?

.
Title: Re: primitives discuss ostensible hate crime
Post by: Lord Undies on May 18, 2009, 06:21:05 PM
Quote
cboy4  (1000+ posts)        Sat May-16-09 03:43 AM
Response to Reply #36

37. Right, but when a black person is hanging from a tree, I don't start thinking a black person did it.

And when a gay person is beaten to death outside a gay club with a baseball bat, I don't start thinking a gay person did it.

100 percent of all hate crimes are committed by someone who hates.

That we know, without having to look at any FBI statistics like the ones you cited that hardly paint the full picture.

Tell it to Gianni Versace's corpse as you step over Andrew Cunanan's body.
Title: Re: primitives discuss ostensible hate crime
Post by: thundley4 on May 18, 2009, 06:48:10 PM
Quote
Quote from:
cboy4

What harm does it do to start with the premise that this is a hate crime and work backwards?

The big problem with this is that it leads to misinterpretation of the evidence to fit the desired outcome.  As an example: too many "glowbull warming scientists" work backwards assuming their thesis is already valid.
Title: Re: primitives discuss ostensible hate crime
Post by: GOBUCKS on May 18, 2009, 10:26:46 PM
Quote
franksolich suspects the percentage of gayieties homocided is, coincidentally the same percentage as the gayieties in the general population, so there's nothing more "special" about it than those who are deaf, who are homocided probably in exact proportion to their numbers in the general population.

I dunno about that. These people enjoy perverted conduct that leads them to sexually proposition strangers in city parks, public restrooms, and highway rest stops in the wee hours of the morning. Sounds like a peachy way to increase one's odds of being homocided. I doubt there are many deaf people in those places at those times.
Title: Re: primitives discuss ostensible hate crime
Post by: franksolich on May 18, 2009, 10:53:51 PM
I dunno about that. These people enjoy perverted conduct that leads them to sexually proposition strangers in city parks, public restrooms, and highway rest stops in the wee hours of the morning. Sounds like a peachy way to increase one's odds of being homocided. I doubt there are many deaf people in those places at those times.

Yeah, you know, sir, ten minutes after writing what I wrote, it occurred to me I was way wrong, really way wrong.

I suddenly remembered all those studies done about gay males being "high risk takers," in things not only sexual.  They appear to like to hang around rough areas, things like that.  And if one hangs around a rough area, his life-expectancy probably somewhat diminishes.
Title: Re: primitives discuss ostensible hate crime
Post by: AllosaursRus on May 19, 2009, 12:12:24 AM
With this kind of logic, all they are doing is making the outcome suit they're political beliefs.

For cryin' out loud, kingygarderners can do that!
Title: Re: primitives discuss ostensible hate crime
Post by: jukin on May 19, 2009, 09:30:39 AM
>>>BLIND SQUIRREL ALERT<<<>>>BLIND SQUIRREL ALERT<<<

I could not have made a better argument against hate crime laws. 
Title: Re: primitives discuss ostensible hate crime
Post by: delilahmused on May 19, 2009, 01:58:06 PM
The thing about hate crime legislation is it says one person is more important than another. A white girl with a jealous, mean white ex boyfriend could be raped, tortured, and beaten to death because she doesn't want to get back together with him. Since they're both white, it's not a hate crime. It doesn't matter how much she suffered, how much pain and fear she felt as she expelled her last breath. It doesn't matter if someone overheard him screaming "I hate you, you filthy ****ing slut!" She doesn't rate special consideration because of the simple fact that she was born white and she doesn't sleep with people of the same sex. But, some gay person gets shot in his driveway and it's a hate crime. It might turn out to be an ex lover. It might turn out to be someone he owes a lot of money to. It might turn out to be a case of mistaken identity. It might turn out to be circumstance...wrong place, wrong time. The shooter might not know nor care what this person's sexuality is. But the "evidence", with no investigation whatsoever points to a hate crime because it was reported he was gay after the fact. For all we know, a neighbor could have heard the person shout from the car, "You stole my boyfriend, so I'm going to kill you!" But even if someone shouted "I hate fags!" before pulling the trigger, why is his life more valuable than the woman who died at the hand of someone she knew?

Cindie
Title: Re: primitives discuss ostensible hate crime
Post by: thundley4 on May 19, 2009, 02:14:43 PM
The thing about hate crime legislation is it says one person is more important than another. A white girl with a jealous, mean white ex boyfriend could be raped, tortured, and beaten to death because she doesn't want to get back together with him. Since they're both white, it's not a hate crime. It doesn't matter how much she suffered, how much pain and fear she felt as she expelled her last breath. It doesn't matter if someone overheard him screaming "I hate you, you filthy ****ing slut!" She doesn't rate special consideration because of the simple fact that she was born white and she doesn't sleep with people of the same sex. But, some gay person gets shot in his driveway and it's a hate crime. It might turn out to be an ex lover. It might turn out to be someone he owes a lot of money to. It might turn out to be a case of mistaken identity. It might turn out to be circumstance...wrong place, wrong time. The shooter might not know nor care what this person's sexuality is. But the "evidence", with no investigation whatsoever points to a hate crime because it was reported he was gay after the fact. For all we know, a neighbor could have heard the person shout from the car, "You stole my boyfriend, so I'm going to kill you!" But even if someone shouted "I hate fags!" before pulling the trigger, why is his life more valuable than the woman who died at the hand of someone she knew?

Cindie

Change that to a "mean black ex-boyfriend", and they most likely would not call it a hate crime either.