For all the MAGAt Trumpeteers and Lie-brul socialists to post their wearisome screeds.
The board admins are not responsible for any items posted from Biker's FaceBook feed.
Anyone posting Ben Garrison political cartoons gets a three-day vacation.
VinceBordenIII wrote: ↑Tue Feb 26, 2019 6:33 pm
How do I get on one of these protected groups lists? Is there a petition process?
Get dragged behind a pickup, then burnt to death.
I don’t think that’s what “protected class” means. You are protected because of your race, not because you are a particular race. The question then becomes, who does this calculation? Are the laws being applied evenhandedly?
You asked how protected classes got identified for special protections in the first place, not what protected class means. Stop playing dumb. Protected classes recognise group characteristics that have long histories of motivating attacks causing severe injury and death, and you trying to claim a hat getting knocked off is the same thing as that just makes you look silly.
Race is a protected class, there are enhanced penalties if you attack someone and it can be proven that you were motivated by race. What you are 'protected from' is being attacked by a racist for racist reasons. As I already patiently explained to you, police investigate, prosecutors make that calculation based on the evidence, which then gets tested by a judge and jury.
And yes, the law is applied even handedly. Presumably you're in the white man victim camp? It's a myth.
Of the 6,370 known offenders:
50.7% were White
21.3% were Black or African American
19.1% race unknown
Enough with the “stop playing dumb” and “makes you look silly” nonsense. That’s a tactic, not an argument. An old sfw tactic, in fact. Unfortunately, I am on an iPad and can’t cut and paste very easily, so I’ll have to rely on my quoting you.
You do not “patiently explain” to others. You assert. I can”patiently explain” that the moon is made of green cheese. It is not.
The known offenders, as you list them, are charged by people. Not machines. You can no more say the law is applied even handedly than can anyone else.
Hate crimes law is bad law. I am simply pointing this out.
As you said before, the time to consider hate motivation is during sentencing.
Do you think someone getting their hat knocked off is the equivalent to a campaign of murder and intimidation by the KKK? Clearly the answer is no. Stop saying dumb stuff if you don't want to be called on it. I have in fact patiently explained why protected classes have been recognised as such and how the law is applied. The stats show that if it is being applied unevenly, the bias is not against white folks but for them, as it is throughout the criminal justice system.
Your argument that people are charged by people is not specific to hate crimes law, that's necessarily how all law is applied. I'd be interested to hear your alternative on that one. The argument you are making would therefore have to be that all law is bad law, which is foolish.
And you can't patiently explain the moon is made of cheese, since it isn't and you have no explanation to present. That would be an assertion. Not sure you grasp the difference there.
I assert that any crime driven by hate of a class or group, should (or should not) be a hate crime. That includes knocking the MAGA hat off a kid, if your motivation is that you don’t like trump. You not only assaulted him, you did it for a reason. What he represented to you. Hateful hateful hateful.
A usual crime has solid evidence. That is how it is determined to be a crime. You either had a theft or murder, or you did not. “Hate” calls for judgment. When should it be applied? What’s the threshold?
He convinced himself he had to fight the race war by getting his news feed from a website that reported only black on white crime. Which was the intent of the website. You do the same thing when you try to aggregate only the sliver of reports that turn out to be false or incomplete while ignoring the far more common daily grind of things that are actually happening. It's creating a false narrative where all hate crimes are fake and it's the white man who is the victim. You probably aren't aware you're doing it though, it's not like you think for yourself these days.
analhamster wrote: ↑Tue Feb 26, 2019 9:48 pm
Yes, that's what I said. Kinda takes a shit on the narrative of the white man being a victim of librul overreach don't it.
Perhaps, but it depends on the narrative. If we are to believe the MSM narrative that its mostly hate filled whites going round looking for a darkie to assault, then the stats go against that grain. Kinda like the 'hands up, dont shoot' hoax that they pushed
You declare what the msm narrative is based on commentary from the rightie bubble about what it is. You're misinformed.
Nope, not at all
Man, they didn’t even care about the truth! They realized our media had gone back to yellow journalism long before I did.
VinceBordenIII wrote: ↑Tue Feb 26, 2019 10:08 pm
I assert that any crime driven by hate of a class or group, should (or should not) be a hate crime. That includes knocking the MAGA hat off a kid, if your motivation is that you don’t like trump. You not only assaulted him, you did it for a reason. What he represented to you. Hateful hateful hateful.
A usual crime has solid evidence. That is how it is determined to be a crime. You either had a theft or murder, or you did not. “Hate” calls for judgment. When should it be applied? What’s the threshold?
Now you're just ignoring my patient explanations. Hate crimes are committed against certain protected classes, they are protected because of a history of violent attacks based on membership of those classes and having a hat knocked off really doesn't register as an offense requiring exceptional legal protections.
I've answered your threshold question many times now. The standard of proof is the same as it is for any other crime. Are you comprehending what I'm saying?
analhamster wrote: ↑Tue Feb 26, 2019 10:11 pm
He convinced himself he had to fight the race war by getting his news feed from a website that reported only black on white crime. Which was the intent of the website. You do the same thing when you try to aggregate only the sliver of reports that turn out to be false or incomplete while ignoring the far more common daily grind of things that are actually happening. It's creating a false narrative where all hate crimes are fake and it's the white man who is the victim. You probably aren't aware you're doing it though, it's not like you think for yourself these days.
So a racist, obscure website is exactly the same as the entire MSM? Dude, youre fucking losing it
The MSM isn't doing that, you are. You aggregate anything that fits your narrative and ignore the bulk of things that don't, your narrative being that it's all false reporting.
This made me laugh. Only in America could you be so fucking unself-aware as to attack someone for a political hat when you yourself are in the country illegally.
Surprise! Woman Who Attacked Massachusetts Man Over MAGA Hat Is Illegal Alien; Arrested By ICE Tuesday
VinceBordenIII wrote: ↑Tue Feb 26, 2019 10:08 pm
I assert that any crime driven by hate of a class or group, should (or should not) be a hate crime. That includes knocking the MAGA hat off a kid, if your motivation is that you don’t like trump. You not only assaulted him, you did it for a reason. What he represented to you. Hateful hateful hateful.
A usual crime has solid evidence. That is how it is determined to be a crime. You either had a theft or murder, or you did not. “Hate” calls for judgment. When should it be applied? What’s the threshold?
Now you're just ignoring my patient explanations. Hate crimes are committed against certain protected classes, they are protected because of a history of violent attacks based on membership of those classes and having a hat knocked off really doesn't register as an offense requiring exceptional legal protections.
I've answered your threshold question many times now. The standard of proof is the same as it is for any other crime. Are you comprehending what I'm saying?
So it’s just a line drawn at some arbitrary point. “Things inside this group are hate, outside - not so much. Not making any judgments, though. This is all logical stuff.” No. Hate crimes law is bad law.
VinceBordenIII wrote: ↑Tue Feb 26, 2019 10:08 pm
I assert that any crime driven by hate of a class or group, should (or should not) be a hate crime. That includes knocking the MAGA hat off a kid, if your motivation is that you don’t like trump. You not only assaulted him, you did it for a reason. What he represented to you. Hateful hateful hateful.
A usual crime has solid evidence. That is how it is determined to be a crime. You either had a theft or murder, or you did not. “Hate” calls for judgment. When should it be applied? What’s the threshold?
Now you're just ignoring my patient explanations. Hate crimes are committed against certain protected classes, they are protected because of a history of violent attacks based on membership of those classes and having a hat knocked off really doesn't register as an offense requiring exceptional legal protections.
I've answered your threshold question many times now. The standard of proof is the same as it is for any other crime. Are you comprehending what I'm saying?
So it’s just a line drawn at some arbitrary point. “Things inside this group are hate, outside - not so much. Not making any judgments, though. This is all logical stuff.” No. Hate crimes law is bad law.
It's a line drawn in the statutes at clearly defined points which must then be proven to the same criminal standard as any other crime and is there for the reasons I have explained to you over and over and over. No group is protected because of anything as petty as having their hats knocked off.
You clearly aren't capable of thinking past your starting conclusion on this one.
analhamster wrote: ↑Tue Feb 26, 2019 6:44 pm
Get dragged behind a pickup, then burnt to death.
I don’t think that’s what “protected class” means. You are protected because of your race, not because you are a particular race. The question then becomes, who does this calculation? Are the laws being applied evenhandedly?
You asked how protected classes got identified for special protections in the first place, not what protected class means. Stop playing dumb. Protected classes recognise group characteristics that have long histories of motivating attacks causing severe injury and death, and you trying to claim a hat getting knocked off is the same thing as that just makes you look silly.
Race is a protected class, there are enhanced penalties if you attack someone and it can be proven that you were motivated by race. What you are 'protected from' is being attacked by a racist for racist reasons. As I already patiently explained to you, police investigate, prosecutors make that calculation based on the evidence, which then gets tested by a judge and jury.
And yes, the law is applied even handedly. Presumably you're in the white man victim camp? It's a myth.
Of the 6,370 known offenders:
50.7% were White
21.3% were Black or African American
19.1% race unknown
Enough with the “stop playing dumb” and “makes you look silly” nonsense. That’s a tactic, not an argument. An old sfw tactic, in fact. Unfortunately, I am on an iPad and can’t cut and paste very easily, so I’ll have to rely on my quoting you.
You do not “patiently explain” to others. You assert. I can”patiently explain” that the moon is made of green cheese. It is not.
The known offenders, as you list them, are charged by people. Not machines. You can no more say the law is applied even handedly than can anyone else.
Hate crimes law is bad law. I am simply pointing this out.
As you said before, the time to consider hate motivation is during sentencing.
Do you think someone getting their hat knocked off is the equivalent to a campaign of murder and intimidation by the KKK? Clearly the answer is no. Stop saying dumb stuff if you don't want to be called on it. I have in fact patiently explained why protected classes have been recognised as such and how the law is applied. The stats show that if it is being applied unevenly, the bias is not against white folks but for them, as it is throughout the criminal justice system.
Your argument that people are charged by people is not specific to hate crimes law, that's necessarily how all law is applied. I'd be interested to hear your alternative on that one. The argument you are making would therefore have to be that all law is bad law, which is foolish.
And you can't patiently explain the moon is made of cheese, since it isn't and you have no explanation to present. That would be an assertion. Not sure you grasp the difference there.
I assert that any crime driven by hate of a class or group, should (or should not) be a hate crime. That includes knocking the MAGA hat off a kid, if your motivation is that you don’t like trump. You not only assaulted him, you did it for a reason. What he represented to you. Hateful hateful hateful.
A usual crime has solid evidence. That is how it is determined to be a crime. You either had a theft or murder, or you did not. “Hate” calls for judgment. When should it be applied? What’s the threshold?
Actually, murder isn't quite so simple. If you kill someone, did you murder them? Yes, but it could be first, second, or third degree murder.
Or maybe you didn't murder them, it could be manslaughter, and could be voluntary or involuntary. Or it could be negligent homicide, or justifiable homicide.
Or it could have been an accident. It all calls for some judgment.
But there is a crime. A body. This guy did it. Premeditated? Accident? Those go to the specific charge. Hate should be a contributing factor in sentencing. Did he plan to kill a black guy? That moves you toward premeditated, even if they were arguing.
analhamster wrote: ↑Tue Feb 26, 2019 9:48 pm
Yes, that's what I said. Kinda takes a shit on the narrative of the white man being a victim of librul overreach don't it.
Perhaps, but it depends on the narrative. If we are to believe the MSM narrative that its mostly hate filled whites going round looking for a darkie to assault, then the stats go against that grain. Kinda like the 'hands up, dont shoot' hoax that they pushed
You declare what the msm narrative is based on commentary from the rightie bubble about what it is. You're misinformed.
Two members of the alt-right group Proud Boys pleaded guilty Friday for their role in a fight with Antifa protesters outside of the Metropolitan Republican Club in Manhattan last year, the New York Post reports. In all, ten members of the group reportedly appeared in New York State Supreme Court and have been recommended a variety of assault and riot charges by the Manhattan District Attorney’s office. Two of them have reportedly taken plea deals for a lesser charge of disorderly conduct and agreed to fives days of community service in exchange for no jail time. The cases against the other eight are pending. Two are due back in court later this month.
Los Angeles woman who beat elderly man with a brick sentenced to 15 years
Prosecutors say Jones severely beat Rodolfo Rodriguez in the face with a brick on July 4 as the man was taking a walk. They say Rodriguez did nothing to provoke the attack.
Witness said Thirty-year-old Laquisha Jones yelled at Rodriguez: "Go back to your country."
Tragic wrote: ↑Sat Mar 02, 2019 2:34 pm
Los Angeles woman who beat elderly man with a brick sentenced to 15 years
Prosecutors say Jones severely beat Rodolfo Rodriguez in the face with a brick on July 4 as the man was taking a walk. They say Rodriguez did nothing to provoke the attack.
Witness said Thirty-year-old Laquisha Jones yelled at Rodriguez: "Go back to your country."
Because she took a plea to lesser offenses without the expense of a full trial. It's how your system works 95% of the time. At trial she was facing attempted murder with the hate crime enhancement.
captquint wrote: ↑Sat Mar 02, 2019 12:30 pm
Two members of the alt-right group Proud Boys pleaded guilty Friday for their role in a fight with Antifa protesters outside of the Metropolitan Republican Club in Manhattan last year, the New York Post reports. In all, ten members of the group reportedly appeared in New York State Supreme Court and have been recommended a variety of assault and riot charges by the Manhattan District Attorney’s office. Two of them have reportedly taken plea deals for a lesser charge of disorderly conduct and agreed to fives days of community service in exchange for no jail time. The cases against the other eight are pending. Two are due back in court later this month.
captquint wrote: ↑Sat Mar 02, 2019 12:30 pm
Two members of the alt-right group Proud Boys pleaded guilty Friday for their role in a fight with Antifa protesters outside of the Metropolitan Republican Club in Manhattan last year, the New York Post reports. In all, ten members of the group reportedly appeared in New York State Supreme Court and have been recommended a variety of assault and riot charges by the Manhattan District Attorney’s office. Two of them have reportedly taken plea deals for a lesser charge of disorderly conduct and agreed to fives days of community service in exchange for no jail time. The cases against the other eight are pending. Two are due back in court later this month.
