tricky_ab

It all started because she came out of the girl washroom and the two girls had a problem with it...They thought that she shouldn't have been in there and that's when it kicked off (File that under a hate crime since the issue was that she was transgendered)...so throw the book at their ignorant asses...

holemilk00

Yeah I don't agree with it either, but right now the law sees transgendered people as members of the civil rights group of "homosexuals". So this will end up being a hate crime.

__________________
I had a cool signature

gearhead55

Man i think 'hate crimes' are stupid. A crime is a crime is a crime.

Reading the story though it didn't seem like she was attacked for using the female bathroom, it says the chick attacked her after confronting her for 'trying to hit on her man' basically. The scenario that tricky ab described is what i expected to find was the case, but from the reports apparently it wasn't. Who knows what really caused it though. Like ronmcdon said, i think the attackers were just fucking psycho bitches...

Gizmo_S13

2 on 1 is never a fair fight. If I was to see something like this I would get involved, it doesn't matter if you're gay, straight, transgendered, or skin color. I was known in HS for getting into trouble but if I was in a fight it was always 1 on 1 or the cases where I got jumped. People are low life trash in today's society it's fucking disgusting! Even males in today's society lack manners towards females. Calling girls bitches, hoes, sluts, etc. Is disrespectful on a lot levels. To me it doesn't matter if you're gay or transgendered the way i see it you live your life like you build your cars. You do what makes you happy not what everyone else into.

__________________

Hachiroku, ATTACK! ATTACK! ATTACK!!!

sw20>>s14

that just happened...

right...so you see no discernible differences between:

-two gangbangers succumb to gang violence and get shot
-two sikhs get shot in sacramento for absolutely no reason (recent true story)

-an arson attacks a high school
-multiple attacks of arson happen in the castro district all within days of each other (recent true story)

how you cannot extrapolate the differences between a crime and a "hate" crime is beyond me...dont be stupid...hate crimes exist and they ARE not "stupid"...

__________________
s14| y34| 911 gts| exige s| 600rr| r3| 250r| 85 girlfriend

rb25_s13*CHUKI

^^^^ what are you getting at my quoting me?

__________________
Obliterate

spiderlone

ahhaha . Here we go anthony.....

__________________

*-- SPIDER --*

gearhead55

I absolutely DO see a difference between those situations. But i think it should be looked at like this;
-two gangbangers get shot because they were involved in violent activity and willing put themselves into situations in which they might get shot
-two innocent people were gunned down for no other reason than they're religious affiliation.

Each crime should be judged on an individual basis and the second should receive a much harsher sentence than the first, but having pre-existing laws in place that make distinctions between racial/religious/sexual preference groups doesn't make sense.

If a crime is especially disgusting and unjust it should be punished as such. Sentencing is variable for exactly this reason. Having extra laws is unnecessary and simply further entrenches the differences that created the 'hate crime' in the first place. Do you see my perspective?

edit: to clarify my position, i of course believe that hate crimes exist, but that does not mean that there should be extra legislation based on ethnic/religious/sexual preference condtions.

In your examples the two crimes are not equivalent, but say for example you are comparing the murder of the two sikhs to, say, a white male killing two other white males because they are wearing Obama t-shirts. Is that crime any less despicable because the victims are of the same race? In both cases a man is killing two innocent people simply because he has differing beliefs than them, but with hate crime legislation in place, the first scenario would warrant a harsher sentence simply because the religious affiliation of the attacker and victim is different. That doesnt make sense. Each case should be looked at individually and be sentenced without bias due to ethnicity etc...

kuelee

Ghetto ass ppl... all i can say.

ronmcdon

Hate Crime is really more of a legal definition, and exists in other countries as well.

Not saying it's right or wrong (for the sake of discussion), but the rationale behind it is that you are making an additional psychological affront against not only the victim, but also the group the perp is attacking.

Another way to think about it is that you can get in trouble discriminating another group in a bad way,
even without the use of violence (i.e. saying you hate all gays at work explicitly). Therefore a 'hate crime' takes into account the crime that occurs regardless of the discrimination, PLUS it also takes into account the said discrimination.

The way I personally see how it could be severe in a legal sense, is that it pretty much establishes the crime as having a 'malicious intent' (vs. a spur of the moment, or accidental). Having malicious intent usually is recognized by our and many other legal systems to be much more severe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime

gearhead55

Ok i see what you mean. I can see how the psychological damage to the group that the victim identifies with could add to the severity of the crime. I also understand the added severity that comes from a premeditated act as opposed to a 'spur of the moment' act. That being said, i think that those circumstances can still be taken into consideration in a trial without the need for extra 'hate crime' legislation.

In general i think that more emphasis should be put on dealing with each case individually instead of relying on legislation to determine sentencing.

I hope my response makes sense, my thursdays are free so i've been having beers with buddies all afternoon....