|
|
|
|
|
| "We know......."
Posted: 4/30/2009 10:04:57 AM | And yet again, another reason to sigh, shake my head and wonder how some people sleep at night or look in a mirror.
Matthew Shepard killed in non-bias "robbery," Foxx says
North Carolina Republican Rep. Virginia Foxx is questioning whether the 1998 murder of Matthew Shepard, a 21-year-old gay University of Wyoming student, was a bias attack motivated by his sexual orientation.
Shepard's mother Judy was in the gallery at the time, according to a senior Democratic aide.
The socially conservative Foxx, arguing against a new Democratic hate crimes bill that includes new protections for gays and lesbians, described the description of Shepard's murder as a anti-homosexual attack a "hoax" -- and questioned whether prior bias crime legislation should have been named after him.
“I also would like to point out that there was a bill -- the hate crimes bill that's called the Matthew Shepard bill is named after a very unfortunate incident that happened where a young man was killed, but we know that that young man was killed in the commitment of a robbery. It wasn't because he was gay."
She added: "This -- the bill was named for him, hate crimes bill was named for him, but it's really a hoax that that continues to be used as an excuse for passing these bills.
"Matthew Shepard's mother was in the gallery yesterday and I believe she was back today -- so I'm sorry she had to be around to hear it," said Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.). "It's an urban myth... And I'd tell her that man did land on the moon and the moon wasn't made out of green cheese."
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), who supports the hate crimes bill, stared in disbelief before answering a question about the statement.
"It's just sad the Republican caucus has been reduced such a fringe," she said. "It's sad they would go out of their way to prevent people from getting justice."
Two young men -- Russell Arthur Henderson and Aaron James McKinney -- were convicted in connection with the crime, with multiple witnesses testifying to their anti-gay aspect of the crime. Both also intended to rob the Sheppard home after the attack, according to press accounts.
McKinney testified that Shepard attempted to grab his leg earlier in the evening and that had spurred a "gay panic" that provoked an extraordinarily violent outburst -- with his lawyers claiming McKinney had suffered homosexual abuse as a child.
There is video of her statement:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0409/Matthew_Shepard_killed_in_nonbias_robbery_Foxx_says.html
I don't know who this "we" is she's speaking of ~ maybe she has an imaginary friend or two she hangs out with. | |
|
| We know.......
Posted: 4/30/2009 10:24:43 AM |
I don't know who this "we" is she's speaking of ~ maybe she has an imaginary friend or two she hangs out with.
Well it's obvious that this woman does not live in the same reality that we do. | |
|
| We know.......
Posted: 4/30/2009 11:33:20 AM | It does not surprise me. Con-servatives claim the mantel of Christianity but often lack basic Christian compassion.
There are certain things that anyone with good common sense would not say. How very, very pathetic.
Lateef | |
|
| We know.......
Posted: 4/30/2009 3:15:25 PM | I do disagree with her particular statement, I think that it does point out a major flaw in the hate crimes bill.
In theory, it's a great idea. For any crime that is biased by some sort of discrimination, let's increase the punishement.
However, in practice, it isn't something that is necessarily possible. How do one person know, let alone a jury, know what is going through a persons head? Yes, in some cases, it's possible, but unless all juries hail from Betazed, it is something that is not always probable. | |
|
| We know.......
Posted: 4/30/2009 3:49:48 PM | I'm on the fence about the whole hate crimes thing. On one hand, it does seem that people should understand that commiting a crime for any kind of discriminatory purpose is intolerable, but on the other hand, it seems to somewhat trivialize the people who are killed in other equally stupid non-discriminatory crimes.
I mean really, what's the difference between someone being murdered for being gay and someone being murdered for being in the wrong place at the wrong time? Virtually nothing. In neither case did the victim deserve what happened to them. In both cases, an innocent person is dead for no good reason. | |
|
| We know.......
Posted: 4/30/2009 3:54:06 PM | ^^^I completely agree. I was more disturbed by this particular person's vocalization of her obvious ignorance than any debate over the law/theorem itself.  | |
|
| We know.......
Posted: 4/30/2009 6:50:07 PM | she is an idiot, and as a republican AND a conservative i think her comments are not only offensive but absolutely disgusting as well.
she is a moron.
who the f is she anyways?
sheeeesh!
lar | |
|
| We know.......
Posted: 4/30/2009 10:06:28 PM |
I mean really, what's the difference between someone being murdered for being gay and someone being murdered for being in the wrong place at the wrong time? Virtually nothing. In neither case did the victim deserve what happened to them. In both cases, an innocent person is dead for no good reason.
The thing with hate crimes is it's not just an attack on a particular person, it's often used to intimidate and frighten entire communities. For example in the south, when they lynched black people, it was to send a message to every one who happened to be black. If the state can prove that the motive to commit a crime was someone's race, gender, religion, or sexuality, then I would have no problem with them rotting in prison for a bit longer. | |
|
| We know.......
Posted: 4/30/2009 11:03:31 PM | i agree that there is no difference between someone being killed for thier wallet, or being killed for the color of thier skin or sexual orientation; however, what this woman said is pretty outrageous and offensive. matthew shepherd was killed for being gay. on the flip side, i did read a legal case of a woman being killed by a young man who was gay simply because she was a christian and told him that his lifestyle was a sin. that hardly justifies murder either. coincidentally, i was introduced to the case by a gay professor who felt the way i did about it. just because someone says something to you doesn't mean you have the right to kill them. no matter how you look at this issue murder is still murder. the reason is does not make someone more dead.
on the other hand... every time i have seen two people get in a fight - who happen to be of different races - the accumption is always that it is racially motivated. this isn't always the case of course. i mean, i am white and i can tell you i don't get along with all white people. there are plenty that i do not like at all. so it is ludicrous to act as though conflicts between people of different races are always based on race. unfortunately, i have heard this assertion again and again.. and again...
lar | |
|
| We know.......
Posted: 5/1/2009 11:26:55 AM |
If the state can prove that the motive to commit a crime was someone's race, gender, religion, or sexuality, then I would have no problem with them rotting in prison for a bit longer.
The question that needs to be asked for this dilema: is being a racist a crime within itself? If so, then yes, additional charges could and should be added for the crime if it can be proven without a shadow of a doubt that it was racially motivatated (although getting inside someone's head seems nearly impossible). But you can't really charge anyone with being stupid and ignorant in a court of law. | |
|
| We know.......
Posted: 5/1/2009 3:08:28 PM |
The thing with hate crimes is it's not just an attack on a particular person, it's often used to intimidate and frighten entire communities. For example in the south, when they lynched black people, it was to send a message to every one who happened to be black. If the state can prove that the motive to commit a crime was someone's race, gender, religion, or sexuality, then I would have no problem with them rotting in prison for a bit longer.
Fair enough.
Just to put a different spin on it here, suppose hypothetically someone gets killed for stepping onto gang turf. Race/sexual orientation/whatever has nothing to do with it. They were just in the wrong place, and the owners of the turf killed this person to send a message to citizens and rival gangs alike that this area is claimed by this specific gang. Would that not be the same thing? | |
|
| We know.......
Posted: 5/1/2009 3:21:28 PM | ^^^I think that's handled differently because there are laws on the books today for that very specific purpose (Feinstein-Hatch Bill for example.)  | |
|
| We know.......
Posted: 5/1/2009 3:27:06 PM |
However, in practice, it isn't something that is necessarily possible. How do one person know, let alone a jury, know what is going through a persons head? Yes, in some cases, it's possible, but unless all juries hail from Betazed, it is something that is not always probable.
Confessions to that effect? Predatory practices which indicate an obvious target? Statements to the victims during the crime?
Just to put a different spin on it here, suppose hypothetically someone gets killed for stepping onto gang turf. Race/sexual orientation/whatever has nothing to do with it. They were just in the wrong place, and the owners of the turf killed this person to send a message to citizens and rival gangs alike that this area is claimed by this specific gang. Would that not be the same thing?
Some places have anti gang legislation just for things like this. | |
|
| We know.......
Posted: 5/1/2009 3:33:06 PM |
Some places have anti gang legislation just for things like this.
What about crimes committed by town bullies then? Or abusive parents singling out one kid to keep the others in line? Or loan sharks killing someone to put the fear into others?
The motive for a lot of crimes is to create fear - I'm not a big fan of hate crimes legislation myself. The motives for a lot of violence can be far more detestable than racism, sexism or homophobia. In a system of laws I've really leary about punishing the motive, not the crime. | |
|
| We know.......
Posted: 5/1/2009 3:43:03 PM | The motive for a lot of crimes is to create fear - I'm not a big fan of hate crimes legislation myself. The motives for a lot of violence can be far more detestable than racism, sexism or homophobia. In a system of laws I've really leary about punishing the motive, not the crime.
Manslaughter vs 2nd degree murder vs first degree murder.
Assault vs self defense.
Terrorism vs simple murder.
Vehicular homicide, vs a plain old accident that causes death.
Motive is a huge component in nearly all crime and for very good reason. Once this fact (and it is a fact) is conceded a real discussion can occur around why the motives of hate crimes deserve additional penalties. To which my reply is as follows:
Hate crimes have an effect that go far beyond their initial victims. If a man jumps out of his car and lays a baseball bat beating down on two men for holding hands. It has a chilling effect on the entire community. Its not only an assault, it's also a statement, "You can't do that, or be that, you must hide, and you will be afraid."
The entire practice of lynching was based around this effect. It wasn't just murder, it was terrorism and quite effective. It told African Americans that if they ever got out of line, or looked like they were trying to get any sort of power or organization for themselves. Death would be the result.
What about crimes committed by town bullies then? Or abusive parents singling out one kid to keep the others in line? Or loan sharks killing someone to put the fear into others?
What distinct group is a town bully trying to instill fear in? What distinct group is a loan shark trying to put fear into?
Abusive parents have a tendency to lose ALL their kids. | |
|
| We know.......
Posted: 5/1/2009 3:52:15 PM |
The question that needs to be asked for this dilema: is being a racist a crime within itself? If so, then yes, additional charges could and should be added for the crime if it can be proven without a shadow of a doubt that it was racially motivatated (although getting inside someone's head seems nearly impossible). But you can't really charge anyone with being stupid and ignorant in a court of law.
No being a racist is not a crime, however if that racism incites you to murder, beat, or drag someone behind a pickup then yes there should be more punishment.
I think that hate crimes legislation sends a clear message that bigotry, which results in violence will not be tolerated in our society. I really am glad the Matthew Shepard Act was passed in the House, and I look forward to the day when the President signs it into law. | |
|
| We know.......
Posted: 5/1/2009 4:06:09 PM | Or abusive parents singling out one kid to keep the others in line?
Domestic violence and/or domestic battery charges are designed for these types of cases, usually with a "aggravated" clauses for the most egregious forms of domestic violence. There are also child protection laws which can aid in the prosecution of such crimes.
Or loan sharks killing someone to put the fear into others?
Gaming and conspiracy laws along with Federal laws enacted long ago for mobs/mafia affiliation related criminal activities would likely be used in cases such as these.
~OT~ Basically my take is that most violence has been addressed on the legislative front. I think "hate" crime legislation is about the last in line when it comes to law. Stalking laws are another example (by some opinions) of questionable intention. When is John/Jane Doe "stalking" versus simply being a pain in the azz? Like most all other things, prosecutors/district attorneys/law enforcement/courts ultimately have a duty to produce evidence providing clarification of the fine-line cross over. I personally believe the case in question here in a no-brainer. Other examples? Not quite as clear cut. This case unfortunately was, indeed about hate, not robbery.
I really am glad the Matthew Shepard Act was passed in the House, and I look forward to the day when the President signs it into law.
I agree.
| |
|
| We know.......
Posted: 5/1/2009 5:04:41 PM | My difficulty with the particular hate crime laws being legislated now is not the theory, but the wording. It is so generic, it can be applied to anyone that voices an opinion. The uproar over the question of gay marriage answered by Miss California is a terrific example of how the law could be abused. If someone went out and committed a crime against a homosexual couple and sited Miss California's answer as the catalyst for the crime, she could be charged as well. As I understand it, a minister giving a sermon against gay marriage could also be considered to incite hate crimes.
I am with VGE on the insensitivity of Virginia Foxx. It is inexcusable. | |
|
| We know.......
Posted: 5/1/2009 5:58:37 PM |
My difficulty with the particular hate crime laws being legislated now is not the theory, but the wording. It is so generic, it can be applied to anyone that voices an opinion. The uproar over the question of gay marriage answered by Miss California is a terrific example of how the law could be abused. If someone went out and committed a crime against a homosexual couple and sited Miss California's answer as the catalyst for the crime, she could be charged as well. As I understand it, a minister giving a sermon against gay marriage could also be considered to incite hate crimes.
Actually you're wrong. Section 11 of H.R. 1592 of Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007, commonly known as the Matthew Shepard Act makes an exception for first amendment issues.
Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution.
Don't believe me, try this link
http://www.rules.house.gov/110/text/110_hr1592.pdf
Please don't get me started on Miss California. In a world filled with war, poverty, crime, and disease, she spends her time worrying about the relationships of complete strangers. | |
|
| We know.......
Posted: 5/1/2009 8:55:00 PM |
Please don't get me started on Miss California. In a world filled with war, poverty, crime, and disease, she spends her time worrying about the relationships of complete strangers.
I don't think she spent any time on it. She was asked a question, she responded honestly, and probably lost because of it. It's a shame people can't even be honest anymore. But it's strange that every time gay marriage gets on a ballot, it fails. Must be a lot of liars out there. | |
|
| We know.......
Posted: 5/1/2009 9:16:22 PM |
I don't think she spent any time on it. She was asked a question, she responded honestly, and probably lost because of it. It's a shame people can't even be honest anymore.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,518458,00.html
http://www.nationformarriage.org/site/c.omL2KeN0LzH/b.5130215/k.A806/Religious_Liberty.htm
Actually she is spending time on this issue. She is now working with religious right to prevent homosexuals from getting married. I would have no problem if she believes that marriage should be between men and woman because of her religious convictions. What I take issue with is her insisting that others must live their life according to her moral code. I really wish people could remember that we do not live in some Christian theocracy. | |
|
| We know.......
Posted: 5/1/2009 9:33:52 PM |
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,518458,00.html
http://www.nationformarriage.org/site/c.omL2KeN0LzH/b.5130215/k.A806/Religious_Liberty.htm
Actually she is spending time on this issue. She is now working with religious right to prevent homosexuals from getting married. I would have no problem if she believes that marriage should be between men and woman because of her religious convictions. What I take issue with is her insisting that others must live their life according to her moral code. I really wish people could remember that we do not live in some Christian theocracy.
Thankfully, though, we have the right to petition the government on our issues because of whatever convictions we hold, be them religious or otherwise. It's the first amendment that says so. | |
|
| We know.......
Posted: 5/1/2009 9:37:06 PM | The current legislation just passed by the House on April 29 is Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009, and it has no Section 11.
Don't believe me, try this link:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c111:3:./temp/~c111eIO2rI::
Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by, the Constitution.
You notice free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constition has been left out of the version that passed. | |
|
| We know.......
Posted: 5/1/2009 9:58:18 PM | You're right, i had the wrong bill. I stand corrected. However it does have a free speech clause under section 8.
Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by, the Constitution.
Pretty much what that means is you can still say hateful things, and still be protected under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. This piece of legislation only deals with violent acts. It defines hate crimes as:
Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person
or
Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, 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
Don't worry, just because this passed does not mean they are going to arrest Miss California or your preacher. | |
|
| We know.......
Posted: 5/1/2009 10:12:29 PM |
Actually she is spending time on this issue.
Oops! I didn't realise she was turning it into a career move. My fault there. I don't give Miss America (or runners up) a second thought after the roses are thrown and the tears wiped away. Nor do I EVER pay attention to rumour mill bloggers named after the most famous for nothing person on earth. Both of their opinions are nothing more than what they are, opinions.
You notice free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constition has been left out of the version that passed.
Oops #2 (but I bet it wasn't really an oops at all). But we should all learn from Miss Runner Up anyway, shut up, smile and keep your opinions to yourself. Then you can be Miss America instead of Miss Runner Up. | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
