ambush the gay kid, get a 3-day suspension

[Yugl]

If that intent part is talking to me, Kuya, my post was addressing the fact that it's difficult to remove motive from the law without undermining (Or removing) the idea of intent. Primarily, I speak with respect to counterfactual crimes (Crimes that failed to happen, but were planned to do so). Also, it seems intuitively odd that one could dissociated intent from motive in hate crimes. Do I not have an intent if I commit a hate crime? Whether that be to instill fear in a racial group or stop certain practices, it seems somewhat pertinent. I don't consider hate crime to follow to the extent of the thought police, but as you mention, it is a difficult issue to prove. The point, however, is that they have to prove it. They can't just point to someone and speculate that it is a hate crime and expect to win on those grounds.

[Kuya]

If that intent part is talking to me,

No

edit: but i think i agree with what you just said though

[Churchill]

Someone else mentioned this earlier, but I fail to see how it applies to crimes that failed to happen. I intended to commit treason, my motive for doing so is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if I was selling to the dirty chinee or the commies I was still planning to commit treason and that's the crime.

[Yugl]

And as I said, unless it's a random act, you're going to use motive to prove intent. If your prosecutor is unwilling to go forth and prove motive, what is to stop a defense from saying they didn't intend for the crime to happen in the case that all the evidence is stacked against them? No motive leaves a great deal of a space for reasonable doubt. Unless in the most gross of cases, how do you know if it's attempted murder and not reckless endangerment? Moreover, we also have affirmative defenses. Some of these include motive as a just reason for the action. Self-defense? The intent and act are there, but the motive is the saving clause.

[Churchill]

You're not going to jail on most conspiracy/intent to commit crimes without any hard evidence anyway. Motive in most of those cases is a ploy to paint the Defendant in one light vs. another. It's the same bag of tricks as defamation of a witnesses character to take away from their testimony (Because jurors are people and people are very smart)

If I talk to some guy who says hey bro want to kill this bitch and I'm like yeah sure whatever dude and then a cop is like hey I hear you want to kill this bitch and you're like psh no. It doesn't happen like that, something had to have happened, conversations recorded, witness testimony, whatever. Then they prosecution will dive into why you may or may not have intended to do that act to sway the jury to lend credence to their charges. The problem with motive in intent to commit or any crime is that it's so very easily misrepresented that it should have no place in the courtroom. Get a divorce and wifes a cunt? Good luck with that, because the system is fair. Most of the time you sit there grinding your teeth, clenching your fist because no matter what you say or do you will only get it worse.

Also the reason I carried a drop phone, had 4000$ cash accessible with my passport when I was dating. If I was ever accused of rape I was going to disappear forever.

[Yugl]

You're not going to jail on most conspiracy/intent to commit crimes without any hard evidence anyway. Motive in most of those cases is a ploy to paint the Defendant in one light vs. another. It's the same bag of tricks as defamation of a witnesses character to take away from their testimony (Because jurors are people and people are very smart)

It's not a "trick", it's a necessity. Removing all doubt is a high standard (Though de facto, it's unrealistic and unnecessary, but if you want to go that route, you have to advocate bypassing the rules). Intent becomes a much higher standard when you lack the ability to use motive as guidance for intent. Moreover, you do not address affirmative defenses. Chances are that motive will affect the level of punishment you receive (Remember that it's not X crime => Y punishment; there are variances such that Y1 and Y2 may be difference).

[Churchill]

I didn't address defense because it's a crime that happened and we were talking about intent to commit crimes but in the case of self defense I don't see any way to make it not black and white without motive.

But. I would be in support of a self defense law which in a sense would remove the necessity for motive to the the sole point of speculation for punishment.

And I understand that without motive those crimes are hard to prove but I would rather see less convictions because the prosecution couldn't prove what was inside someones head or not by using defamation tactics and arguing over motives instead of facts. I've even heard a prosecutor tell a jury "We don't need to prove he killed that woman I only need to show you he wanted to". Well unless he wrote a note and signed it in blood you can't prove that, yet because the way the court system works he was able to get the conviction. Too much power over us mortals imo.

[Yugl]

How would you make self-defense law without motive? Or in another case, how about cases of entrapment? As for your last paragraph, you're essentially saying that the prosecutor needs to show proof beyond reasonable doubt without using motive. Some would argue that in difficult cases would require motive to satisfy beyond reasonable doubt. When I say difficult, I don't mean ambiguous either.

[Yuri-G]

then go do them? your posts are always fucking useless.

I disagree or I wouldn't post them.

by the way, if you have something to say that doesn't involve swearing, insulting, trolling, and generally talking shit to try and get people riled up, I'm all ears. honest, I would love to hear your opinion without the personal attacks and general all-around trash talk.

Give me % statistics. I honestly don't see it. Another factor is, it's kinda difficult to tel apart gays from straight people when walking down the street. It's not as if the gay guy has a giant shirt that says "I AM GAY" (well I mean besides the overly excessive ones, like nearly all of the ones on the forum), compared to different skin color.

I'm just saying, most people only know a person is gay because they KNOW the person, giving them many other reasons to fucking hate the person and commit said acts.

here is a great article on this topic. but honestly, if you want statistics, google them - not to be rude, but this is not college and I am not your professor. or alternatively, maybe you could provide statistics that prove your side of the argument instead of asking me to take the burden of proof upon myself.

http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/Articles/000,001.htm

also, here is a bonus article that explains exactly why we will not agree regardless of how many facts and statistics are posted from either side of the fence. food for thought and fascinating at that.

http://www.cracked.com/article_19468...you-think.html

They're kids who got into a fight with one of them getting his ass beat. Calling it a "hate crime" when teenagers are little douchebags who'll say anything is a bit of a stretch.

I will repeat myself as many times as it takes: this was not a fight, it was a beating. the difference is not just semantic. I feel like I shouldn't have to explain the difference between a couple of kids fighting over a girl or some shit, and a kid getting a concussion plus two broken teeth after being ambushed in the classroom with no warning, so I won't. if you don't get that, nothing I say will change your mind.

School gives 3-day suspension. This is a clear case of assault. If the mom went to the cops, the kid should be arrested immediately, that'll take him out of school much longer than 3 days. If he's not, I have a problem with the police dept.

Oh, but this wasn't a fight, it was an ambush you say? Should be worse than a 3-day suspension even without the cops involved? Tell me, what type of zero-tolerance policy are we advocating here? Is it the beating? The anti-gay slurs? The cocktail of the whole thing? Should he be expelled? What if the gay kid fought back? Still expelled? What if it wasnt an ambush? Still expelled? Do we want zero tolerance for "ambushing gay kids only", but 3-days for other types of fighting?

These aren't hypotheticals. Where is the line?

Or should it just be a 3-day "cool the fuck off" suspension and then let the legal system run its course if applicable?

Or is that too reasonable?

despite your sarcastic tone I'll take you at your word that you are not asking hypothetical questions here. the truth is, we agree on a lot of things. we both think this was far more severe than your average schoolyard fight, and we both think the kid should face serious repercussions. you said yourself that this is clearly assault and the kid should be removed from school for a very long time - by the cops. I feel the school should take part in that action, as stewards of the safety of their students and enforcers of discipline as well.

so let me ask you this: why take the kid out of school at all? you are advocating punishment through the penal system, fine. but you have no problem with the 3-day suspension, even though by your own admission you believe the kid should face harsher punishment in the end. is a 3-day suspension the blanket punishment for any altercation, with the legal system mopping up afterward? that doesn't make a lot of sense to me. it's obvious that this kid was targeted (whether for being gay or otherwise), and it's obvious that he did very little if anything to provoke the attack (even his attacker's best attempt at a rationale was "he bumped shoulders with me in the hallway"). based on those facts alone, I feel the school has every reason to remove this kid from class for a much longer period of time than three days. is that really all we disagree on?

because here's the thing: you talk a lot about where to draw the line, but the truth is, you've already drawn it when you said this was a clear case of assault - you just happen to think the legal system should take responsibility for enforcing that line. I think the school has a bigger part in it. as far as I can see, that's really what this comes down to.

and come to think of it, the way I phrased this topic title was misleading. I was experiencing a visceral emotional reaction as a gay man to the beating of a gay kid. I have seen that shit happen and I have been afraid that it would happen to me, and while that may or may not be rational, I think it is certainly understandable. all I could think was "those assholes would have thrown the book at this kid if his victim wasn't gay," and while that is a perfectly valid fear (seriously. beat up a gay kid in small town texas vs. some liberal haven like seattle and see what happens) it isn't relevant in this case, at least not with the knowledge we have so far. so for that I apologize.

[Chun Liroy]

I'm in class and didn't finish reading your post. However, you made a claim, the burden IS on you to provide support for your argument. It is also on me to find statistics contrary to yours, but I was simply being skeptical and not trying to prove anything.

[Ponyo]

I like going from the first page or two to the last one, funny how they relate

[Yuri-G]

I'm in class and didn't finish reading your post. However, you made a claim, the burden IS on you to provide support for your argument. It is also on me to find statistics contrary to yours, but I was simply being skeptical and not trying to prove anything.

you're also making a claim; namely that homosexual or transsexual people are not targeted any moreso than heterosexual people. justify your skepticism or trust the people who seem to know more about it than you do. until I get paid to start posting on BG I am rarely if ever going to spend more than a couple minutes max pulling data on a subject to prove anything to anyone. that's just a damn waste of time. maybe if it's a subject I'd like to learn more about myself, that's the only case I can think of.

however, I did post a link backing up the assertion that homosexuals are targeted more often than heterosexuals for various violent crimes. it not only provides statistics but also goes into detail on exactly what those statistics mean, where they are inadequate, why they do not always reflect reality, and how to interpret them. feel free to peruse it at your leisure.

[Chun Liroy]

however, I did post a link backing up the assertion that homosexuals are targeted more often than heterosexuals for various violent crimes. it not only provides statistics but also goes into detail on exactly what those statistics mean, where they are inadequate, why they do not always reflect reality, and how to interpret them. feel free to peruse it at your leisure.

Ok, and I appreciate that, and that's all I was looking for. I'm just saying, if you go around making random claims without providing evidence, it's not really going to help support your argument no matter how much you assert that you know more about the subject than others...

[Brill Weave]

Christ this thread hasn't been Godwinned yet?

[Yuri-G]

http://images.wikia.com/suikoden/ima...62/Gizel01.png

eh?

[Cantih]

This seems relevant
http://michiganmessenger.com/53702/s...ly-legislation

First few bits

Advocates for a law to prohibit bullying and provide school districts with the tools to address the problem were dealt a stinging rebuke Wednesday morning in the Republican-controlled Michigan Senate. The GOP pushed through an amended bill, SB 137, which does nothing advocates have pushed for — including reporting requirements and enumeration, or listing, of protected classes. In addition, the legislation provides an exception which allows bullying based on “moral convictions.”
The full language of the insert is: “This section does not prohibit a statement of a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction of a school employee, school volunteer, pupil, or a pupil and parent or guardian.”

[Manf]

Oh lord.

[Yuri-G]

shared on facebook. this is low, even for the Michigan Republicans.

[archibaldcrane]

Wisconsin's just eliminated affirmative action for college admissions during a special "jobs" session.

lol

[Kuishen]

Fucking really? What the fuck.