Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: d[-_-]b who wrote (111759)	5/23/2009 4:25:35 PM
From: Dale Baker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541430

What constitutes hate in a legal sense when the idea is generally perceived as the norms of society which are constantly changing. It's pretty clearly with established racial/sexual/religious/ethnic insults that represent bigotry that ordinary equal opportunity laws penalize, that qualifies as a specific hate motive, as opposed to assaulting someone in a simple robbery, domestic dispute or typical bar fight. We have judges who decide at arraignment if charges are justified on probable cause, grand juries to rule on indictments and juries to decide the issues of fact in hate crimes cases. Between all those, I don't lose any sleep over hate crimes defendants. But I don't see any reason to assault another person ever except in self-defense, so assholes who lose their temper and do it anyway can sit in prison and get screwed, as far as I'm concerned. No one makes hate crimes assault perpetrators go out and do what they do. It's 110% a pro-active choice.