Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Gay bar attack and hate crimes

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: Gay bar attack and hate crimes
Eric
Member
Member # 2699

 - posted      Profile for Eric   Email Eric       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
OK, I'm jumping on this before Richard does. A guy (an 18 year-old, no less) attacked some patrons at a gay bar in MA. foxnews.com link

This certainly looks like a crime motivated by hate, so this brings up the question: Should there be such a thing as hate crimes? Does hate crime legislation raise the spectre of "thought control"?

Or should there just be sentencing guidelines that allow a judge to consider hatred to be an aggravating factor when deciding a sentence? Or is that, in fact, what hate crime legislation does?

Posts: 448 | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Or should there just be sentencing guidelines that allow a judge to consider hatred to be an aggravating factor when deciding a sentence? Or is that, in fact, what hate crime legislation does?

This is pretty much what most hate crime legislation does, and hate crime legislation should be of this type, or of the type where the crime becomes classified as a terrorist attack because of the intent of the crime.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Eric
Member
Member # 2699

 - posted      Profile for Eric   Email Eric       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ev --

Kind of what I thought it might be, but never looked into it. I always bristled at the term "hate crime", as if some legislation were passed saying it's illegal to hate someone or something. But I have no problem at all with a judge using motive as an aggravating factor at sentencing time.

Posts: 448 | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Funean
Member
Member # 2345

 - posted      Profile for Funean   Email Funean   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I've felt for some time that there is such a thing as a "hate crime," and that I know it when I see it, but for obvious reasons hesitate to formalize that standard into law. I mean, imagine how much time I'd have to spend on the phone making determinations! [Wink]

It seems to me that if a prosecutor can show that the criminal act was intended to, or could reasonably have been expected to cause, terror or disruption in a discrete community, additional penalties are appropriate. In other words, if the crime created or might have created additional harm to the community because of the hate element, just as possessing a weapon during a robbery is an aggravating circumstance, regardless of whether the weapon was used.

Note that I do not think that being a member of a particular group causes a crime against that person to be automagically a hate crime, even if the victim was targeted due to that membership. The criterion for me is whether the crime was damaging beyond the damage done by any like crime. If a transsexual is brutally raped because s/he is a transsexual, I don't think that warrants harsher punishment than any other person who is brutally raped, other factors being equal. If that same transsexual victim is then dumped, unconscious and bleeding, on the steps of the local gay bar, then I think we can start talking about hate crime, as such an act clearly has the intent or at least the effect of making a terrorizing statement against transsexuals, gays, or both.

Edited for spelling and because I was going to add a good link to the differences in hate crime law from state to state but I now discover it's disappeared from my favorites. I'll look for it.

[ February 02, 2006, 01:11 PM: Message edited by: Funean ]

Posts: 5277 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't see why Funean's scenario of dropping a beaten person off to intimidate the patrons of a gay bar should be any different from organized crime figures dropping off a busted-up guy at the same bar because they didn't pay their protection money.

It is more severe than just beating the guy up in both cases, but not worse than each other. They each include intimidation beyond the assault.

Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Funean
Member
Member # 2345

 - posted      Profile for Funean   Email Funean   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I actually agree that the goodfella scenario includes an aggravating factor that should be considered in sentencing as well. However, I'm not sure the societal damage is the same in both cases. I'm just noodling this out now, so bear with me.

In the case of the dumped TS, there is an effect and/or intent of terrorizing the patrons of that bar specific to their sexual noncomformity. It's not the same as dumping any beaten person on the steps when it's a transsexual (or homosexual, or transvestite, or other sexual minority).

The beaten guy who didn't pay up isn't a personalized threat to the members of some group that might reasonably be expected to congregate at that location--it's a threat to the bar owner, presumably because he is or might be lax on paying his protection money. And it's not a threat to "bar owners" but *that* bar owner (and, I suppose, any of his patrons who might happen to own bars and be behind on *their* protection money, but that's a stretch).

Because the crime encompasses intentional or reasonable-to-expect harm to more than just the beating victim, the Mob beating includes aggravating factors. Hate crimes are those crimes with similar aggravating factors whose scope reaches whole groups or communities.

Admittedly there are more than enough grey areas and murky boundaries to keep a whole flock (murder? wait, that's crows) of lawyers happily filing for decades, but I do think the distinction exists.

Posts: 5277 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, in the microscopic, it is important to realize that New Bedford was part of Dartmouth. When it decided to separate, the whalers -- who were familiar with South America and East Asia, decided to call the new town Bedford -- and petitioned the Great and General Court to name themselves thus. Unfortunately, the G&G responded, we already have a Bedford (right north of you! [Big Grin] ) Oh, OK say the widely, wildly traveled whalers, then how about New Bedford? This area has never been considered part and parcel of the eastern establishment or the elite intellectual bloc. When U Mass was to build thereabouts, they decided on Dartmouth -- and gave New Bedford the Junior Police Academy [Smile] .

We ain' talkin' nuh boardies aw nuh danglahs [high-school grads] when wheeah talkin' wicky trawlahtown [trawler town, not trailer town], OK? Like y'gotta huh?

In fact, one needs a translator just to determine what it is that being said in N'beffud. So it's perfectly possible he was talking about his mother's smock as he swung the hatchet. (Shades of Lizzie Borden in nearby Fall Rivvuh!)

Which is all to say that I would do anything to avoid the issue of 'hate crime' if I could, and I understand Fun's argument in the micro -- but not in the macro.

Say you were standing in front of a gay bar in New Bedford, and this Portagee gang (it's relevant because the inciter in this case is a Portagee) comes along and screams 'fuggin faggots' in front of a known-to-be gay bar -- and a fracas ensues. The only real problem here is that one must isolate the common Portagee phrase 'fuggin faggot' -- labeled against all manner of nonfaggots -- to the gay-bar fracas. This isn't difficult to do at sea level. To whom was says something makes a difference. I don't know if its the difference, but it's a difference.

But at 30,000 feet or, as I am, 1500 miles south, the reason why one person tries to kill another is decidedly moot. Even an attempt to murder somebody is a no-no that IMHO ought to be a fixed charge with a fixed penalty.

No, I don't like the idea of judiciary discretion, and no I don't like the idea of judges making up laws, and no I don't like the idea of cutting deals and making messes in court rooms when it costs the taxpayers money. From 1500 miles away, at least, I want the law to be pretty damn cut and dried.

And yes, I'd ask the same question Drake is asking -- but extortion is a crime unto itself, and should be tried separately. I don't like these mix-and-match trials where the players get to choose their accessories and their makeup.

Who said, we can try a guy for three crimes in three trials quicker than we can try a guy for two crimes in one. ???

Anyway, up close I can comprehend that 'hate crime' is an aggravating factor and 'love crime' is a mitigating factor, but from the top of the hill viewing the battle through my telescope, I'd say everybody's trying to kill everybody else down there.

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This now appears to be the usual 'skin-head' scenario. Nazi 'paraphrenalia' (is that the right word?), anti-Jewish writings, the whole bit. The Nazis were Judeophobic and homophobic, after all -- not that those who merely voted for the Nazis weren't.
Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If the gays kill a skin-head, is it a hate crime against skinheads?

That's my biggest beef about the idea of a "hate" crime. It's applied in a very unequal fashion, both in terms of the group being hated and the specific perpetrator.

Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
One's ignoracnce and hate that can't be tolerated. The other is business.

And gays don't go out to kill skin heads. I however beat the crap out of three of them when I was younger. I did it because they tried to make me get off a pay phone, but I must admit I already hated them and was thrilled to beat the three of them into bloody pulp. Never understood why people think if you shave your head or smell bad you are tough. I'm an athlete. They couldn't beat me at any other contest, why would fighting be any different. Proved this point in several barroom fights with "bikers". Pussies in smelly jackets. So, I guess I was guilty of a lot of hate crimes. But I basically hated everybody when I was young.

KE

[ February 03, 2006, 05:22 PM: Message edited by: KnightEnder ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
'fashion', that's the key word, not 'hatred'. How does one 'evaluate' hatred or love? How can such thing be entered into the equation of guilt or innocence?

I mean, I can remember when being drunk was a mitigating circumstance -- at least in front of a drunk judge.

If everybody knows you hate the bitch, get her while she's walking Fifi on a rainy night and plead careless driving, manslaughter, anything, darling, so we can be married. Do I have to kill her, Futzy, or do you really, really love me?

KE: Not funny [Big Grin] !

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Here's one M found. She asks, How would you like to be stabbed 19 times and, watching TV whilst fighting for your life, that, if you die, the guy could be out in 7 years after you're dead in a plea bargain? Jeezh, being murdered can be a real bummer, huh?
Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Okay, leave out the skinheads. A white gang beats up a black man, a black gang beats up a white man. Who gets charged with a hate crime?

Criminal justice, if nothing else, must be blind to race and sexual preference by statute.

If we go back to the skinheads example, are people allowed to assault them with impunity because of what they say or stand for? Be very careful when you answer. There's a reason why evil Klan marches are protected from violence by law enforcement.

Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm agreeing with you, Drake! My point was that this guy should be tried separately (but on the same morning) for each crime:

* attempted murder? failed murder? whatever that crime is.

* intimidation, and it doesn't matter if it's in a public or private place.

* disturbing the peace (death penalty by my reckoning).

* carrying a concealed and then unconcealed weapon, it doesn't matter if he bared it between his teeth!

Whatever ...

What gets my goat is that this will go on and on for months, after they find him. There will be bail hearings, thousands in mental tests and free medical service, there will be a grand jury, there will be months of evidentiary, there will weeks of jury, there will be hours of babble, scores of witnesses who weren't there, and tons of paper, endless bills (to the taxpayers) and the whole thing will be a 'deal' -- and the wanna-be-just around here will talk about "the course of justice".

What I'm asking is -- still: Why is Saddam alive? What possible question of responsibility can there be? What "course of justice" goes on for years before justice is served? What difference to the dead does it make that he's really Sodom Insane?

If they catch the guy who attempted to murder these guys in a bar, he should go to jail for the full term of the crime -- whether he was mentally stable or unstable, whether voices told him to do it or not, whether he was taking revenge or not, whether he was a skinhead or a fuzzy wuzzy. Ultimately, it doesn't matter why he perpetrated injustice -- so why does the 'why' enter into justice if justice is to be the end result of the result of injustice he sought? The only reason I can conjure up is that justice is not being served but, rather, the lawyers.

As my lawyer put it, "There is no such thing as justice. We just want to keep blood off the streets. That will be $600, and I got you off by your foreskin. You understand that, don't you?"

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No arguments, Richard. There's a lot of song and dance involved, and there are some people that are just so guilty that you could hang em and hang em high without any worries, like your example of Hussein.

My understanding is that the Italians had few regrets after partisans executed Mussolini.

Plea bargaining is whole other topic, one worthy of discussion. And "mitigating circumstances" my arse. And I especially loathe the, "He's never been in trouble before, and he's a good student in a rich family so let's try probation." when they turn around and throw the book at a poor uneducated kid for commiting the same offence.

My skinheads comment was response to KE's commentary.

Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
As my lawyer put it, "There is no such thing as justice. We just want to keep blood off the streets. That will be $600, and I got you off by your foreskin. You understand that, don't you?"
Amen. Been there.


And Drake. I get what you're saying about free speech and all. I was just saying that I even with white on white sub human crime could have been charged with a hate crime. (The last one I beat up was because he wouldn't stop trying to sell me drugs even after I told him several time I didn't want any.) These guys give you plenty of reasons to beat their asses and if your half way intelligent they can be baited into starting it. I hate the Klan, Skin heads ect. still. If I beat the crap out of them is it a hate crime? Or does it depend on the circumstances?

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It all depends on what you mean by mitigating circumstances.

Suppose someone is drinking heavily on a camping trip, and their buddy has a heart attack. No cell service, and no one around, he drives anyway. He kills a hitch-hiker while swerving down the road.

I'm saying lighter sentence than someone who decided to drive drunk rather than call a cab for the three mile ride home. One of the two is a greater danger to society.

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Jesse:

Well, that's an interesting 'circumstance', but it's not moot to my mind; it's another reason for Boy Scouts.

I know the hunting crowds -- and there are two. There are the LL Bean all-prepared gentlemen with shotguns; there's the ill prepared drunken wool-plaid drunks with rifles. I would want to know which kind of hunter was responsible for driving drunk.

I would have said, however dangerous a heart attack (an act of Ronald McDonald or God), however dangerous hitchhiking (illegal in MA), the greatest danger to society was the drunk driving. And did not the drunk driver in this case demonstrate that?

I don't think it matters that the supposed victim had his pills with him or not.

That's why Scouts learn to have 'a designated driver', a 'nightwatch', whatever; each Scout is assigned to specialize in some necessary useful function. Be prepared, be prepared for anything imaginable.

I remember a snake-bite case in NH where the suction cups didn't fit; the fastest runner was sent for help and, as the joke went, 'the biggest sucker' got as much of the venom out as possible. The strongest, meanwhile, had gotten him down 5K feet by the time the State Park Service had climbed up to meet them. Every kid had his task; every kid earned his badge.

Why should an innocent victim pay the price for the fact that others aren't prepared? Why should a hitchhiker, ae 21, die to save the life of a coronary, ae 65?

There was the case of a tornado victim, beheaded by his neighbor's carport roof. They lived in tornado alley. But the court said it was An Act of God! Palone! This was the result of an irresponsible neighbor who ... under the circumstances ... left a loaded dangerous weapon on his property.

I feel exactly the same way about trees. If one of my rotten trees falls on my neighbor's house and kills her, it was hardly her fault -- and to blame God in this instance is beyond belief. I don't see any mitigating circumstances -- and I'm no great believer in 'manslaughter'. A member of my family was forced into a nursing home because she could no longer patrol her property and guarantee the safety of others. She was horrified to be sent to "prison" because, as she kept arguing, "I can take care of myself!" She could; but she couldn't fulfill the requirements of maintaining social safety.

What is manslaughter? Murder by an irresponsible jerk? http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/m013.htm or by somebody who is authorized to kill! To my mind, if one is not 007 or in a declared war zone, one has no right to kill anybody.

Meanwhile, we've got haphazard drivers getting away with haphazard murder. We've got haphazard inspectors getting away with haphazard murder.

Worse, we have schools that don't address any of these issues seriously -- as if it is the special province of God and our 'judicial system'.

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FiredrakeRAGE
Member
Member # 1224

 - posted      Profile for FiredrakeRAGE   Email FiredrakeRAGE   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Richard Dey said:
quote:
I would have said, however dangerous a heart attack (an act of Ronald McDonald or God), however dangerous hitchhiking (illegal in MA), the greatest danger to society was the drunk driving. And did not the drunk driver in this case demonstrate that?
Why?

Using the example above, we know the guy with the heart attack will die without treatment half of the time. The drunk driver has a minute chance of driving and getting out of control, a minute chance of hitting somebody, a pretty large probability that, if hit, they die (or at least are disabled).

Which is more likely – one or more fatalities due to the drunk driver, or his friend dying of a heart attack while waiting on the side of the road?

I realize that drunk driving is bad – but be reasonable.

--Firedrake

Posts: 3538 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I agree with all that.

But, let's get back to the main question: Should there be hate crimes. At this point, I am of the opinion that there should be. Of course throwing people in jail for hate crimes where you must join a gang of your race is hardly a prescription for rehabilitation.

I abhor racism, but if I'm in a penetintiary, and the only way to survive is to join the Aryan Brotherhood, I'm afraid I'd have to sign up. My hyporcracy stretches far enough to get me home to see my children.

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Eric
Member
Member # 2699

 - posted      Profile for Eric   Email Eric       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
An update... they caught the guy in Arkansas.

From the article:
quote:
Police in Massachusetts have labeled the Bedford attack a hate crime and said Robida would be charged with attempted murder, assault and civil rights violations.
So, it would appear that in Massachussetts at least, the hate crime legislation goes beyond mere sentencing guidelines, and extends to tacking a civil rights violation on top of the original crime.
Posts: 448 | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Eric
Member
Member # 2699

 - posted      Profile for Eric   Email Eric       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
One last update...

I guess the hate crime thing is a moot point, since the creep had the courtesy to die in custody.

Posts: 448 | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ah, Richard, wonderful argument if i was saying that our drunken volunteer ambulance driver shouldn't be punished, rather than saying that his desire to save his friend should be seen as mitigating when set against the completly selfish act of the person in the second example.
Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes, Eric, just saw it on the news here. So he wounds three gay men, and kills two heterosexuals. Homophobia is bad for everybody's health.

Jesse: No mitigating circumstances in my view. Even if the hitchhiker was committing a misdemeanor by hitchhiking, to my mind he was an innocent victim. Was not the drunken driver acting selfishly?

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Compare all the damage done by all those movie and television car chases (that would probably go around the moon every week), and you would come to the same conclusion that most cities (except LA) have come to. Chasing the bad guys is not worth the risk to life and limb.

If you joined the PD so you too could drive 100 mph through town, forget it. The judge is just going to let the guys go anyway.

In short, just exactly what constitutes a mitigating circumstance for endangering the lives of the taxpayers? Is that why the threat posed by the guys in the getaway car has to be exponentially exaggerated? i.e., that some good-cop/bad-cop has to make an ethical decision on the spur of the moment whether it's worth chasing these bad guys?

You call the 911 and claim you're having a heart attack; does that give 911 the right to endanger the lives of others? Does your heart attack trump their safety just because you placed "an emergency phone call"?

I would say it's bad enough that you will be the cause of waking everybody up in the middle of the night just because you're dying! I don't even approve of holding up traffic for funeral processions.

That's all very well for me to say [Wink] ; where I am, help will be too late anyway because there isn't a decent hospital for more than 1000 miles!

No, I still haven't thought of a mitigating circumstance for drunk driving.

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FiredrakeRAGE
Member
Member # 1224

 - posted      Profile for FiredrakeRAGE   Email FiredrakeRAGE   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Richard Dey said:
quote:
You call the 911 and claim you're having a heart attack; does that give 911 the right to endanger the lives of others?
Those individuals working for EMS do not regularly endanger lives. Percentage-wise there is a significantly increased risk of accident during an emergency run, but the actual conduct of those in the ambulance really does not increase risk by a great degree.

As an example, during an emergency run the response time degrades significantly because you must ensure that any red-signal intersection is clear before you cross. That means you need to be moving pretty slow when you hit an intersection with a red light.

To summarize - emergency services do increase risk when they are making emergency runs. The increased risk, however, is small. The risk is principally increased by the erratic driving tactics of the other drivers on the road. Your example is a real straw man [Smile]

--Firedrake

[ February 06, 2006, 12:59 AM: Message edited by: FiredrakeRAGE ]

Posts: 3538 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
witless chum
Member
Member # 1643

 - posted      Profile for witless chum   Email witless chum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Wasn't the original idea behind hate crimes laws that these crimes didn't get prosecuted equally as hard as your average crime, because they powers that be tended to be bigots/racists/antiwhomever and we were correcting for that imbalance?

Richard: What makes you think the Arkansas cop was straight?

Posts: 642 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Firedrake: Have you factored in the annoyance of the sirens?

WC: He was a grandfather, and the girlfriend who had lived with him was also straight.

Hate Crime Legislation. The 'original idea' may have been, as in the Coulter case in 1975, that Irish cops wouldn't pursue murder suspects in a gay case even when the murderer was black, but that was certainly not how it was acted out. The excuse was that blacks, women, gays, etc., needed "special protections"; nobody had the ballocks to take judges and lawyers to court for dereliction of duty.

The Democraps, ironically, utilized this to 'empower' their revised voting bloc -- when, in fact it had been the democratic machines in the cities and south that played the oppressed card!

Creating special laws for special people is not justice; it's called legislative incompetence.

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I wondered what the 'official' response to this would be in The Standard-Times, the only daily left in New Bedford. I would say it is pseudopsychobarf -- in short, no reportage but merely an analysis of the website the culprit subscribed to:

http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/02-06/02-06-06/03topstories.htm

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FiredrakeRAGE
Member
Member # 1224

 - posted      Profile for FiredrakeRAGE   Email FiredrakeRAGE   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Richard Dey said:
quote:
Firedrake: Have you factored in the annoyance of the sirens?
You're comparing a brief annoyance which is muffled by your dwelling to a human life?

Yes, that was taken into account. It's negligible.

Now there are a great portion of calls that would not require lights/siren to the scene. The issue is that it is very hard to separate those calls from the real emergencies. You might get a report of a woman with 'difficulty breathing' who, it turns out, was in full arrest - the bystanders simply did not wish to admit it.

--Firedrake

Posts: 3538 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I've got some places to visit ...! and it ain't 'negligible' [Mad] .

Noise is something like the 3rd major cause of violence in northeastern cities -- and that only accounts for attacks on people who won't turn their volume down.

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FiredrakeRAGE
Member
Member # 1224

 - posted      Profile for FiredrakeRAGE   Email FiredrakeRAGE   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Richard Dey said:
quote:
Noise is something like the 3rd major cause of violence in northeastern cities -- and that only accounts for attacks on people who won't turn their volume down.
People (other people, evidentially [Smile] ) are probably more understanding of an emergency vehicle than some guy with his music turned up too loud.

--Firedrake

Posts: 3538 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Dey:
I've got some places to visit ...! and it ain't 'negligible' [Mad] .

Noise is something like the 3rd major cause of violence in northeastern cities -- and that only accounts for attacks on people who won't turn their volume down.

Forgive me if:

1. I don't feel bad for those who are going insane from all the noise.

2. Don't feel bad when the violence stemming from this "cause" is harshly dealt with.

I don't sympathesize. I live right near to a fire station, and I don't find myself needing to kill those being rescued, or being the rescuers. Odd, that.

[ February 06, 2006, 04:05 PM: Message edited by: javelin ]

Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sorry, but I hold noise pollution as good an excuse to be violent as any I can think of. My rule is that one doesn't have a right to make noise in anybody else's space.

In the Netherlands, one of my neighbors took a guy to court for keeping him up at night playing rock music. In 21 minutes, he got all his rent paid, his missed work days paid, his transportation costs paid, his outlays paid, his court fees paid, a published apology, and $1000 florins besides. That's the civilized way to deal with noise.

The US is one of the most-noise-polluted nations on earth -- and one of the reasons is that the nation is largely suffering from deafness caused by voluminous noise.

Here we're spending a public fortune trying to diffuse light pollution, and light pollution doesn't cause violence. Noise pollution does. It's even more distracting that cell phones -- which are only adding to noise pollution.

Somehow we've been told that it's better for teens to listen to loud music because it calms them down -- but that doesn't calm down those who don't want to hear it.

In my opinion, there is no discipline better dealt with harshly than those who would disturb the public peace.

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You have every right to hold that opinion, Mr. Dey, just as I do, in disagreeing - and I'll support that right for both of us, as best as I am able. However, I hope you don't expect to be supported in it, should you choose to act on it. "Disturbing the peace" is one thing - but running a siren to safely move through an intersection & traffic is quite another.

[ February 06, 2006, 05:00 PM: Message edited by: javelin ]

Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There is a solution to noise pollution.
Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If it's too loud, you're too old! [Mad] Of course this doesn't explain why I love loud music, music I an feel, and my sixteen year old hates loud music.


KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Did y'alll see the car chase shoot-out here last week? One of the worst I've ever seen. Guy/nut had his girlfriend and daughter in the car, the drove from Dallas to Houston where he forced her to start slamming into cars. A while later a wreck ensued, the little girl was thrown free, but "I think" the nut killed the mom with the shotgun before being blown away in a hail of gunfire the likes of which only seen in terminator movies.

Also, days before one of our policmen got fired for saying they weren't letting them doing there job, because they wouldn't let them chase the bad guys at high speeds.

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FiredrakeRAGE
Member
Member # 1224

 - posted      Profile for FiredrakeRAGE   Email FiredrakeRAGE   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The Drake -

Hardly. The level of noise should be kept to a decent volume. There are exceptions though - such as emergency vehicles.

--Firedrake

Posts: 3538 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Why should we have to listen to whoop-whoop-whoop just because some twit who doesn't know a chord progression is driving with his underbelly boom boxes blasting? or has earphones on?

Noise is intimidation. It's viewed as a threat because it is an invasion of somebody else's privacy and their right to pursue their happiness. Believe me, you do not have the right to play opera over my quartets.

It isn't like being able to click to another channel, you know! Somebody who's offended by your noise has one choice: shut you up -- and nobody ought to presume that they're too old to do it. What old lady wants to listen to salsa whilst she's dying of cancer? and maybe she's got grandsons in the Marines, not to mention any ongoing cases the Marines are winning.

Playing your music in somebody else's ears is taking a risk that they want to hear it. People have to be very quiet around a lot of veterans homes.

If it's not loud enough, you're going deaf -- apparently because people have playing loud in your ears. There's a good solution to the problem of people who are going deaf: http://www.hearingplanet.com/hearing-aid-comparison-chart.html .

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1