Lutheran Bishop Comes Out at Youth Conference

[Steverem]

How about cities that tried to forbid Chick-fil-A restaurants in their cities because of causes the founder supported?  It was not enough for people to agitate for a boycott of the restaurants (surely everyone has a right to choose who they will and will not patronize) no the choice to boycott or not boycott Chick-fil-A was to be taken away from the people and decided by their progressive masters for them.

Speaking of which ...

[Matt Hummel]

Well let us say that the individual who shot himself rather than get caught by the police had in fact been captured after shooting the News Reporter and camera man this morning. They were both White, he a self described angry Black homosexual. If he lived, should he have been charged with a hate crime?

[George Erdner]

Well let us say that the individual who shot himself rather than get caught by the police had in fact been captured after shooting the News Reporter and camera man this morning. They were both White, he a self described angry Black homosexual. If he lived, should he have been charged with a hate crime?

Absolutely not. No one should ever be charged with the Federal "hate crime" laws. The very concept of the law is ridiculous. Had he not killed himself, he should have been charged with two counts of First Degree Murder, the most severe charge in the entire criminal system. I don't know if the state where that happened has capital punishment or not, but in any case, he would be subject, if convicted, to that absolute maximum penalty that can be imposed. What earthly good would be adding any additional punishment to what would already be the maximum possible? 

[Matt Hummel]

Well let us say that the individual who shot himself rather than get caught by the police had in fact been captured after shooting the News Reporter and camera man this morning. They were both White, he a self described angry Black homosexual. If he lived, should he have been charged with a hate crime?

Absolutely not. No one should ever be charged with the Federal "hate crime" laws. The very concept of the law is ridiculous. Had he not killed himself, he should have been charged with two counts of First Degree Murder, the most severe charge in the entire criminal system. I don't know if the state where that happened has capital punishment or not, but in any case, he would be subject, if convicted, to that absolute maximum penalty that can be imposed. What earthly good would be adding any additional punishment to what would already be the maximum possible?

George- on this you are like having a Mennonite argue in whether we should go to war in this instance. Your answer is no. But I am interested in seeing what supporters of the concept have to say when the perpetrator ticks off two boxes in protected categories: Black & Homosexual. So, with all due respect, we have registered your vote.

[Satis Est]

Get with the program!  Don't you know birds, fish, and animals (think Cecil) are more important than humans?  Why else would we have government sponsored slogans like "save the bay" instead of "save the unborn"? 

... F

More important? No. However, we do need to remember that without the birds, fish, and animals, and bugs (especially the bugs), there will also be no humans.

[Dan Fienen]

On very little data, my guess would be no, not because his victims were white heterosexuals and he a gay Black, but because this seems at first look to be a case of workplace violence and the victims targeted not because of their race or sexual orientation but because of where they worked,

[James_Gale]

On very little data, my guess would be no, not because his victims were white heterosexuals and he a gay Black, but because this seems at first look to be a case of workplace violence and the victims targeted not because of their race or sexual orientation but because of where they worked,

First, as my upstream comments make clear, I generally think that federal hate-crime laws are a bad idea.  Virginia law and the Virginia justice system no doubt would have handled this matter effectively.


However, I don't agree that this was more than work-place violence.  It was personal.  Here is the killer's twitter feed just before or after the killing.  The camera man had complained to HR about the killer.  And he believed that the reporter had replaced him and had made racist comments.  The two victims were targeted.  Race, sexuality, and gender were factors.  If the races of the shooter and victims were reversed, I think that the commentariat would be calling this a hate crime.

[George Erdner]

George- on this you are like having a Mennonite argue in whether we should go to war in this instance. Your answer is no. But I am interested in seeing what supporters of the concept have to say when the perpetrator ticks off two boxes in protected categories: Black & Homosexual. So, with all due respect, we have registered your vote.

I'm sorry, you didn't stipulate that restriction in your post. I am not a psychic mind reader. Though I did play one on TV once.

[Steven Tibbetts]

Though I did play one on TV once.

Well, how about that?  http://www.imdb.com/name/nm5154328   

[SomeoneWrites]

Well let us say that the individual who shot himself rather than get caught by the police had in fact been captured after shooting the News Reporter and camera man this morning. They were both White, he a self described angry Black homosexual. If he lived, should he have been charged with a hate crime?

Under the facts that I have seen have posted, I don't see why he should or could have been charged with a hate crime.  He tweeted that the person made racist comments.  The motivation I can infer was that he was responding to racism, not the person's race.  If he said something racist himself, then I could see him being charged with a hate crime.

I understand your concern.  But concern is not data.  Do you have any recent examples where states have been unwilling or unable to prosecute and convict perpetrators of violence against sexual minorities?  Federal legislation should be based on data, not mere concerns.

I understand that the issue of states being unwilling or unable to prosecute and convict perpetrators of violence is a reason for the laws.  But I have not seen that it's the only reason for the laws.  If that is the sole principle at work, then I can see your point more clearly.  I've done some digging and I can't find that it is the sole reason for the development of the law.  Any help?