"... a hate crime against a straight man."

What is the world coming to...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19233888/

PAR

par wrote:

What is the world coming to...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19233888/

PAR

I don't get what you mean, this is how those laws are supposed to work, locking up violent bigotted offenders before they have a chance to attack anyone else in the larger group again.

Attacking one guy in a group, all at once? Proof that lesbians are smarter than ninjas!

Sounds like this guy was a loudmouth who didn't know when it was prudent to stop. Doesn't justify assault, I know, but I gotta stick up for the sisters; more radical feminists (which they may not necessarily be) got no love in another thread even from usually-reliable sources of moral indignation.

I don't see where hate crime comes into this? It looks like a simple sentencing for assault with a deadly weapon?

F*ckin' lesbians.

Always preying on the straight man.

Part of equality is getting the same treatment for a crime the majority group gets. So enjoy prison, my violent sisters.

I meant this more as "I cant believe they actually realized that hate crimes can be committed against a white male".

I'm glad its been labeled as such.

PAR

According to the article, the victim is the only one who labeled it as such.

I meant this more as "I cant believe they actually realized that hate crimes can be committed against a white male".

I'm glad its been labeled as such.

In my experience, it's conservatives who think it will never be used to support white males. They don't trust the government, so they don't believe the law will work as advertised, and happily publicize every shred of "evidence" that shows its' flaws.

Podunk wrote:

F*ckin' lesbians.

Giggidy.

Anyway, I'm with par on this one. Not much more to say than that.

I have a hard time getting worked up over this. It doesn't matter how much of a dick the guy is, if you and some friends gang up on him and beat him up, that makes you guilty of assault, end of story. Their reaction to the sentencing pretty much says it all.

I think I've found a good, old-fashioned girl,
Then she put me in my place.

11 years seems awfully high for the crime, though.

Robear wrote:

In my experience, it's conservatives who think it will never be used to support white males. They don't trust the government, so they don't believe the law will work as advertised, and happily publicize every shred of "evidence" that shows its' flaws.

I feel like that Geiko Caveman in that one commercial... "Yea I have a response. What?" lol

Conservatives are scared of government so they publicize when something goes their way. Did I get it? And if I did.. what does this have to do with anything?

PAR

par wrote:

I meant this more as "I cant believe they actually realized that hate crimes can be committed against a white male".

I'm glad its been labeled as such.

PAR

But since it actually hasn't, we're still stuck in the real world where people believe that hate crimes only occur against gays and minorities. There are even people who are blaming the man and saying that the women shouldn't be punished because he made advances towards them.

Malor wrote:

11 years seems awfully high for the crime, though.

We haven't seen the videotape. Seems like if your crime is videotaped the sight of it sickens people so much that the whole "I'm really a good guy/girl at heart who made a bad decision" argument doesn't work so well to reduce the sentence. The video must also have rebutted their argument that they were somehow justified in attacking him.

Sounds like they're certainly guilty to me. Someone verbally assaults you, that doesn't give you the right to physically assault them. Someone shoves you (which the article didn't mention if the security tape showed that or not), that doesn't give you the right to beat them up. And unless someone is wielding a deadly weapon against you, that doesn't give you the right to wield deadly force against them (the knife).

Pretty cut and dry to me.

Now, as for the hate crime portion of it, I don't think it applies here. The girls beat up the guy for stupid reasons, but from what I read, it wasn't because they were out to assault a heterosexual male due to his ethnicity or sexual orientation. They were out to assault this guy specifically for who he was: a jackass.

Someone verbally assaults you

Article also says

She said the fight started after Buckle pushed and shoved them.

But you are still correct.

11 still seems like a lot, but I guess they did stab the guy.. In the liver..

Farscry wrote:

They were out to assault this guy specifically for who he was: a jackass. ;)

So for equality's sake you'd have the same opinion if it had been a group of straight guys who had attacked a gay guy for hitting on them?

CannibalCrowley wrote:
Farscry wrote:

They were out to assault this guy specifically for who he was: a jackass. ;)

So for equality's sake you'd have the same opinion if it had been a group of straight guys who had attacked a gay guy for hitting on them?

You should, assuming the circumstances are basically the same. Unless those girls were going out intentionally to hunt down a straight man, or the hypothetical group of straight guys were going out specifically to hunt down a gay man, it's not a hate crime. It'd still be battery, assault, etc., but the intent to target someone isn't there.

CannibalCrowley wrote:
Farscry wrote:

They were out to assault this guy specifically for who he was: a jackass. ;)

So for equality's sake you'd have the same opinion if it had been a group of straight guys who had attacked a gay guy for hitting on them?

Wouldn't equity be something more like a group of gay guys attacking a straight chick for hitting on them...?