Gay man's killer gets just 2.5 year sentence

[Willaien]

"Hey. (laughter) Whoa stop. (laughter) Hey, I was just wondering how your boyfriend's feeling right about now. (laughter) (??) knocked the f--- out. (laughter). The f------ faggot. He ought to never stick his mother-f------ nose (??) Where are you going? Just a minute. (laughter). Yea boy, your boy is knocked out, man. The mother-------. Tell him he owes me $500.00 for breaking my god---- hand on his teeth that f------ bitch"

That is what was read before the court, what the man said after knocking him out. This man punched an openly gay man hard enough to knock him to the pavement, where he was knocked unconscious, and died twenty hours later.

http://www.wyff4.com/news/16570947/detail.html

GREENVILLE COUNTY, S.C. -- A man who threw a fatal punch after using an anti-gay slur pleaded guilty to manslaughter Wednesday and was sentenced to less than three years in prison.

Stephen Moller was charged in the death of Sean Kennedy in May of 2007.

Moller served about seven months in jail and was released on bond after his charges were downgraded from murder to manslaughter.

On Wednesday, a judge sentenced Moller to five years in prison, suspended to three years and with seven less months for time served. His attorney said he will probably serve about a year and a half.

Moller and Kennedy were outside Brews bar on Pelham Road when Moller used a slur and punched Kennedy, who was openly gay.

Kennedy fell to the ground and hit his head on the pavement. He died about 20 hours later.

Moller addressed the court Wednesday.

He said, "I wish that young people weren't allowed to be out late at night and the bars were not allowed to serve them alcohol. I think if that hadn't taken place, we wouldn't be here. We wouldn't be here today."

For Kennedy's mother, the apology was not enough

"You know, I knew that he was going to make an apology because that looks good in the court," Elke Kennedy said. "I'm not ready to accept that apology at this point."

Family Points To Transcript Of Call

Kennedy's family said that gay slurs that were used by Moller in a phone call that he made to a friend of Sean Kennedy about 15 minutes after he assaulted Kennedy showed that it was a hate crime.

This is a transcript of the call that was read in court before Moller's sentence:

"Hey. (laughter) Whoa stop. (laughter) Hey, I was just wondering how your boyfriend's feeling right about now. (laughter) (??) knocked the f--- out. (laughter). The f------ faggot. He ought to never stick his mother-f------ nose (??) Where are you going? Just a minute. (laughter). Yea boy, your boy is knocked out, man. The mother-------. Tell him he owes me $500.00 for breaking my god---- hand on his teeth that f------ bitch"

South Carolina does not have legislation that allows the designation of a hate crime.

Attorney, Victim's Mother React To Sentence

Following the sentence, Elke Kennedy said, "There was no justice today for Sean. The sentence that Stephen Moller received, in my opinion, is a joke and a slap on the wrist. Once again, it proves that in South Carolina there is no justice."

She said, "I understand that the judge had to sentence according to the plea agreement and the existing restrictions under the law. But it doesn't make it any easier for me. Our judicial system, in my opinion, is a joke."

Kennedy said, "Our solicitor invited me to help him with the changing these laws. Well, Mr. Ariail, I am here and I am willing."

"I will still continue to push to get laws changed so no other mother has to stand here to tell you the same things," she said.

Defense attorney Ryan Beasley said, "After several months of investigating and getting statements from Sean's friends, there was no evidence whatsoever that there was any kind of hatred toward Sean Kennedy or hatred toward gays. I mean, Stephen had no idea he was gay until after the fact. It's just a freak incident that should never have happened."

Beasley said that involuntary manslaughter was the appropriate charge because it is legally defined as "the unintentional killing of another without malice, but while engaged in an unlawful activity not naturally tending to cause death or great bodily harm; or the unintentional killing of another without malice, while engaged in a lawful activity with reckless disregard for the safety of others."

Beasley said he thinks the sentence was harsh.

"In my opinion, I think it's too much because he's a kid. And he punched somebody just like anybody else has punched somebody in a bar. It's always wrong and he does deserve to be punished. But I think it's just a freak incident that he died," he said.

"It doesn't matter how much time he got," Beasley said. "He's going to be devastated by this for the rest of his life."

Group Says Sentence Not Appropriate

A group called South Carolina Equality compared some other sentences with what Kennedy will serve. They said felony ill treatment of animals (torture or killing) is punishable by up to five years in prison, with sentences raging from 180 days to five years. Cockfighting is punishable with sentences ranging from one to three years and/or a $1,000 fine.

It's worth noting that someone who tortures an *animal* can receive a harsher sentence than this.

Edit: Posting this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggshell_skull) due to comments in this thread on whether or not the death was intentional. A perpetrator must 'take their victims as they find them' - death by result of negligence or unintended consequences, while possibly mitigating, is still very relevant, if it is the result of an illegal act - fighting, in this case.

[PDQ]

While 2.5 years is rather extreme, if it is true that it was accidental that he died due to hitting the pavement and it wasn't a hate crime(in the sense that he was motivated due to the man's sexuality and therefore they can prove that he didn't know about it beforehand), then I'd warn against advocating the opposite extreme of say 25 years or life. Somewhere along the lines of 10 years sounds reasonable for accidental manslaughter. I mean, while it is tempting to say that every death should be treated equally, it would lead to strange results such as someone accidentally killing someone being treated equal to intentional killing. Also while it is tempting to say that because he mentioned it afterwards, that it must be a hate crime, the hate could've been after the event, and his fighting could've been accidental. I mean, if you punched someone of a different race and it caused them to fall off a bridge to their death, it wouldn't be a hate crime due to race. And if you used derogatory language about their race afterwards, it wouldn't necessarily mean that was the motivation. You might have two crimes on your hands(depending on if the latter is officially a crime), but it wouldn't mean they're completely related.

But that's just a precautionary note against any attempt to say that he should necessarily be given an extreme punishment. I think if the statements in his defense are found to be accurate, then 10-15 years would still be definitely more reasonable. There's much lesser crimes with much greater punishment. But sometime headlines can be misleading towards the facts of the case and bias readers towards thinking they basically gave a person who murdered someone else intentionally on the basis of sexuality a slap on the wrist since that doesn't seem to be what happened from the description. I could be wrong and it could've been intentional or done out of hate, at which point, it should be extended to 20-25. But I don't want to rush to judgement against the man since our court system is based on the notion that we're innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around, although that tends to be people's mindsets when they hear about any case.

[Willaien]

While 2.5 years is rather extreme, if it is true that it was accidental that he died due to hitting the pavement and it wasn't a hate crime(in the sense that he was motivated due to the man's sexuality and therefore they can prove that he didn't know about it beforehand), then I'd warn against advocating the opposite extreme of say 25 years or life. Somewhere along the lines of 10 years sounds reasonable for accidental manslaughter. I mean, while it is tempting to say that every death should be treated equally, it would lead to strange results such as someone accidentally killing someone being treated equal to intentional killing. Also while it is tempting to say that because he mentioned it afterwards, that it must be a hate crime, the hate could've been after the event, and his fighting could've been accidental. I mean, if you punched someone of a different race and it caused them to fall off a bridge to their death, it wouldn't be a hate crime due to race. And if you used derogatory language about their race afterwards, it wouldn't necessarily mean that was the motivation. You might have two crimes on your hands(depending on if the latter is officially a crime), but it wouldn't mean they're completely related.

But that's just a precautionary note against any attempt to say that he should necessarily be given an extreme punishment. I think if the statements in his defense are found to be accurate, then 10-15 years would still be definitely more reasonable. There's much lesser crimes with much greater punishment. But sometime headlines can be misleading towards the facts of the case and bias readers towards thinking they basically gave a person who murdered someone else intentionally on the basis of sexuality a slap on the wrist since that doesn't seem to be what happened from the description. I could be wrong and it could've been intentional or done out of hate, at which point, it should be extended to 20-25. But I don't want to rush to judgement against the man since our court system is based on the notion that we're innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around, although that tends to be people's mindsets when they hear about any case.

According to the article, a homophobic slur was used before the attack, and the ensuing conversation afterwards indicates that he was aware of his homosexuality. Being a homosexual, in and of itself doesn't ensure harsher sentences against your attackers, but, in this case, if it was a hate crime - punching someone hard enough to knock them to the ground hard enough to kill them, all because they brushed your face while handing someone else a cigarette... and you knew they were gay and used a slur beforehand? Sounds like a hate crime to me - then it deserves to be treated as such. However, in SC, there are no hate crimes on the books for sexual orientation, nor for federal law, so this is, unfortunately, irrelevant. Regardless, that simple sentence seems too lenient, but, like you said, 25-life would probably be too harsh.

[martryn]

The guy seems like a total fucking asshole. Who the fuck punches someone and then calls that guy's friends to brag about it? And using that sort of speech? For that reason alone the asshole deserves a shit more jail time.

[PDQ]

if it was a hate crime - punching someone hard enough to knock them to the ground hard enough to kill them, all because they brushed your face while handing someone else a cigarette... and you knew they were gay and used a slur beforehand? Sounds like a hate crime to me - then it deserves to be treated as such.

Where did you get the cigarette part, I couldn't find it in the article. Although that sounds like an ass of a reason to do it, unless they burned his face with the cigarette when they passed it.

I guess I was confused by the conflicting parts:
Defense attorney Ryan Beasley said, "After several months of investigating and getting statements from Sean's friends, there was no evidence whatsoever that there was any kind of hatred toward Sean Kennedy or hatred toward gays. I mean, Stephen had no idea he was gay until after the fact. It's just a freak incident that should never have happened."and
Moller and Kennedy were outside Brews bar on Pelham Road when Moller used a slur and punched Kennedy, who was openly gay.
So I wasn't sure since if they were so certain that he made a gay slur, then why wouldn't they be able to counter that claim from the defense?

Although punching someone hard enough for them to fall to the pavement isn't the same as say slamming their head on the pavement until they stopped breathing. I mean, if you hit their chin with some decent force, it could KO them and they would then fall on their own weight to the floor and could cause brain damage. If they didn't call am ambulance if he wasn't moving aftwards almost sounds llike criminal negligence though.

[Willaien]

Apologies, the part about the face-brushing came from another article that they were commenting on at another forum, just read it:
http://www.greenvilleonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080611/NEWS06/80611025/1001/NEWS

[Kira U. Masaki]

the guy is an ass, but i doubt it was his attention to kill the guy
btw the title of this thread is kinda inflammatory, using the term killer which generally implies something more sadistic and planned is kinda overblown

[Willaien]

the guy is an ass, but i doubt it was his attention to kill the guy

Intention to kill does matter somewhat, yes.

However, in English Common Law, there is what is known as the "eggshell skull rule", you should read up on it at Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggshell_skull).

[Kusogitsune]

He obviously didn't intend to kill the guy.

[PDQ]

Intention to kill does matter somewhat, yes.

However, in English Common Law, there is what is known as the "eggshell skull rule", you should read up on it at Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggshell_skull).

Interesting:
In that case, an 11 year old boy kicked a 14 year-old boy in the shin while at school. It turned out that the 14 year-old was recovering from a previous injury. The kick resulted in the boy entirely losing the use of his leg. No one could have predicted the level of injury before the kicking. Nevertheless, the court found that since the kicking was unlawful, and as it occurred during school and not on the playground, the 11 year-old boy was liable for the injury.

I'm not sure how I feel about the idea, but I can see why it would be reasonable in a court of law.. I mean, the world would be a better place if we just stopped using violence altogether, but I would think that rule would be more controversial.

But good find. Totally didn't know about it.

So then would that mean that it would constitute murder instead of manslaughter?

[Nao Yuki]

Gay pride at its best:facepalm

[Willaien]

Interesting:


I'm not sure how I feel about the idea, but I can see why it would be reasonable in a court of law.. I mean, the world would be a better place if we just stopped using violence altogether, but I would think that rule would be more controversial.

But good find. Totally didn't know about it.

So then would that mean that it would constitute murder instead of manslaughter?

In the case of the death of a victim, they are still responsible (thus why an accident can result in a criminal sentence), but there are varying degrees of punishment depending on whether there was intent to cause harm or death.

[Bill G]

Only 2.5 years? :facepalm

[Yume-chan]

Well, it seems like he wasn't planning to kill the guy, but that it was a hate crime. It's not surprising that the defense would try to deny that despite the obvious evidence of homophobia towards the victim, after all, one of Matthew Shepard's killers actually said in his original trial that he attacked him because he suspected Shepard was gay, but later insisted that he was just after money. Not that it matters since in many states in the U.S. hate crimes against gays =/= hate crimes. I was going to add an obnoxious smiley here, but none can express my rage.

[impersonal]

Edit: Posting this due to comments in this thread on whether or not the death was intentional. A perpetrator must 'take their victims as they find them' - death by result of negligence or unintended consequences, while possibly mitigating, is still very relevant, if it is the result of an illegal act - fighting, in this case.

Next we'll see people get 10 years because they (and their victim) are unlucky. Is it a punishable offense now ?

You know, if I run in the streets naked and an old, prude lady gets a heart attack, am I now guilty of manslaughter ?

Personnally, I think 2.5 years is enough, with regards to the crime committed - ie, hitting someone in the face because he's gay.

[Red]

25 years? Isn't that a bit steep? I thought things like this generally ran shorter like 10 or something.

Edit: Misread the period, who the fuck gives 2.5 years for killing a guy? Thats too short in my opinion.

[parker pyne]

That's really, really disheartening to know.

[fghj]

He must've had a good lawyer.

[Nodonn]

In the case of the death of a victim, they are still responsible (thus why an accident can result in a criminal sentence), but there are varying degrees of punishment depending on whether there was intent to cause harm or death.

John is driving home from work. On his way home he somehow gets a heart attack, which causes him to lose control over the car and hit someone. Unfortunatly this person dies.
John wakes up in the hospital and is notified he's being charged for manslaughter.

That's pretty messed up isn't it? :huh

[Aokiji]

That, "Thin skull rule" is bullshit.

[Diceman]

John is driving home from work. On his way home he somehow gets a heart attack, which causes him to lose control over the car and hit someone. Unfortunatly this person dies.
John wakes up in the hospital and is notified he's being charged for manslaughter.

That's pretty messed up isn't it? :huh

Irrelevant,Egg skull rule.

That, "Thin skull rule" is bullshit.
Yes,accountability is bullshit.

Strange thing is,if it was a black man,muslim or any other minority,people would shouting hate crime

[Saufsoldat]

John is driving home from work. On his way home he somehow gets a heart attack, which causes him to lose control over the car and hit someone. Unfortunatly this person dies.
John wakes up in the hospital and is notified he's being charged for manslaughter.

That's pretty messed up isn't it? :huh

So getting a heart attack and driving someone over is comparable to beating someone up for his sexuality?

Strange thing is,if it was a black man,muslim or any other minority,people would shouting hate crime

Actually, this was a hate crime, the problem is the following:

South Carolina does not have legislation that allows the designation of a hate crime.

[Pilaf]

This type of militant homophobia seems to be everywhere.

I worked with a guy who said he wanted to start a gang so they could go around beating up gay people.

I'm serious..and this was a relatively smart guy, studying computers in college and everything. It's not enough he doesn't agree with homosexual marriage or the lifestyle, he has to go around and force his (shitty excuse for) morality on others.

So yeah I believe the events in this article happened.

[Diceman]

Actually, this was a hate crime, the problem is the following:
I meant the people on this forum.

[The Pink Ninja]

2.5 years?

That's pathetic.

Next we'll see people get 10 years because they (and their victim) are unlucky. Is it a punishable offense now ?

Unlucky?

The attacker did not slip and accidentally strike poor dead Kenny.

He deliberately attacked him and left him unattended on the pavement.

Do want to know how you can avoid such unlucky situations?

DON'T FUCKING ATTACK PEOPLE

If you attack people you have to take the consequences, even if they were unintended.

You know, if I run in the streets naked and an old, prude lady gets a heart attack, am I now guilty of manslaughter ?

Only if it was your intent to give her a heart attack. People have been prosecuted for scaring frail and elderly people, either on purpose or as result of robbing them

Personnally, I think 2.5 years is enough, with regards to the crime committed - ie, hitting someone in the face because he's gay.

Sadly the fucktard judge agrees with you.

John is driving home from work. On his way home he somehow gets a heart attack, which causes him to lose control over the car and hit someone. Unfortunatly this person dies.
John wakes up in the hospital and is notified he's being charged for manslaughter.

That's pretty messed up isn't it? :huh

No, because the car accident happened due to events outside of his control.

Are you telling me a Wizard made his homophobe punch this guy and leave him unconcious and unattended on the street?

He did it of his own free will and he bragged about it.

John would only be prosecuted if the accident happened due to negligence i.e. he had been warned he had a high likelyhood of suffering a dehabilitating heart attack. People with certain conditions are for this reason denied driver liscences.

[Aokiji]

2.5 years?

That's pathetic.



Unlucky?

The attacker did not slip and accidentally strike poor dead Kenny.

He deliberately attacked him and left him unattended on the pavement.

Do want to know how you can avoid such unlucky situations?

DON'T FUCKING ATTACK PEOPLE

If you attack people you have to take the consequences, even if they were unintended.



Only if it was your intent to give her a heart attack. People have been prosecuted for scaring frail and elderly people, either on purpose or as result of robbing them



Sadly the fucktard judge agrees with you.



No, because the car accident happened due to events outside of his control.

Are you telling me a Wizard made his homophobe punch this guy and leave him unconcious and unattended on the street?

He did it of his own free will and he bragged about it.

John would only be prosecuted if the accident happened due to negligence i.e. he had been warned he had a high likelyhood of suffering a dehabilitating heart attack. People with certain conditions are for this reason denied driver liscences.

Because you say so?

[dtreex]

Doesn't he get an offence for assault as well?

[Diceman]

Because you say so?

"Hey. (laughter) Whoa stop. (laughter) Hey, I was just wondering how your boyfriend's feeling right about now. (laughter) (??) knocked the f--- out. (laughter). The f------ faggot. He ought to never stick his mother-f------ nose (??) Where are you going? Just a minute. (laughter). Yea boy, your boy is knocked out, man. The mother-------. Tell him he owes me $500.00 for breaking my god---- hand on his teeth that f------ bitch"

And its good to know that accountability is bullshit according to you

[Aokiji]

"Hey. (laughter) Whoa stop. (laughter) Hey, I was just wondering how your boyfriend's feeling right about now. (laughter) (??) knocked the f--- out. (laughter). The f------ faggot. He ought to never stick his mother-f------ nose (??) Where are you going? Just a minute. (laughter). Yea boy, your boy is knocked out, man. The mother-------. Tell him he owes me $500.00 for breaking my god---- hand on his teeth that f------ bitch"

And its good to know that accountability is bullshit according to you

Beating the shit out of someone who dies later on=/=putting his lights out intentionally. One is way worse.

[Diceman]

Beating the shit out of someone who dies later on=/=putting his lights out intentionally. One is way worse.

Of course it is,one is outright murder,the other one is manslaughter with negligence.

[Pilaf]

It's kind of dickish to punch somebody in the face for no reason other than you don't like their sex life, anyway. That pretty much amounts to assault.

[impersonal]

Unlucky?
Yep, unlucky.

The attacker did not slip and accidentally strike poor dead Kenny.
He deliberately kicked him, but he accidentally killed him. Refer to my "running naked" example.


Do want to know how you can avoid such unlucky situations?

DON'T FUCKING ATTACK PEOPLE


If you attack people you have to take the consequences, even if they were unintended.

That reminds me of the whole argument about big brother: "don't worry about big brother, as long as you don't do anything illegal it's okay". Well, in this case, it's the same thing : let's punish people based on things that have more to do with bad luck than with the crime commited. Hey, as long as you don't do anything illegal, it's going to okay !


Only if it was your intent to give her a heart attack. People have been prosecuted for scaring frail and elderly people, either on purpose or as result of robbing them

Do you even realize how much you are contradicting yourself ? One time you care about intent, the other you don't give a shit about it. You're making no sense whatsoever.


It's kind of dickish to punch somebody in the face for no reason other than you don't like their sex life, anyway. That pretty much amounts to assault.
Indeed. The guy is a criminal, and an asshole. However it doesn't make sense, in my opinion, to claim he is as much of a murderer as someone who shoots people in the head with a gun.



I'm serious..and this was a relatively smart guy, studying computers in college and everything.
Meh, that doesn't mean anything. Any retard can study computers. I do, so I know what I'm talking about ! ;)

[Adonis]

While I get what you're saying, Hugo, the fact is the injuries from the attacker's assault led to the guy's death and the correlation is much more direct and definable than, say, causing an old woman's heart to stop by running naked.

[impersonal]

While I get what you're saying, Hugo, the fact is the injuries from the attacker's assault led to the guy's death and the correlation is much more direct and definable than, say, causing an old woman's heart to stop by running naked.

You're right. I was just highlighting my point with a more obvious example. My point being that intent counts.

It's normal to give this guy a smaller penalty, compared to someone who would've also killed the guy, but by shooting him twice in the head with a shotgun. The result is the same; the intent isn't the same.

[Diceman]

You're right. I was just highlighting my point with a more obvious example. My point being that intent counts.

It's normal to give this guy a smaller penalty, compared to someone who would've also killed the guy, but by shooting him twice in the head with a shotgun. The result is the same; the intent isn't the same.

But there is still the case of negligence here.If you punch someone and the guy goes down hard,you'd probably check up on the guy,if he's unconscious or whatever and call in an ambulance.

[Banhammer]

It's a hate crime that caused death. If the judge wasn't a pussy he would have given him at least 10.

[Pilaf]

I forgot the hate crime angle..yes....assault as a hate crime is a steeper penalty than simple assault.

And to Hugo, about the guy I know - my point is that he's going to college to supposedly get a better job and make more money, plus he's getting married like today - so why in the hell would a person throw their life, their marriage and their career away just to start a hate gang to commit hate crimes? I'd have to ask any person considering such a thing if the potential legal consequences are worth the impotent thrill of bullying America's most physically harmless minority.

[Banhammer]

physically harmless minority.
I lol'd

[Xion]

It's not his fault. He didn't know that gay people have heads about as hard as a soft-shelled crab. :zaru

Sad though but if he didn't intend to kill him, he should not be given a much longer sentence. But that short is a little ridiculous.

[Adonis]

After actually reading the news story (it helps) I have to side with Hugo. While the circumstances surrounding the altercation was despicable, labeling the guy a murderer and expecting a murderer's punishment is a slippery slope. Frankly, if you ignore the fact the victim was gay and the attacker was a homophobic dick, this could happen to anyone. It was one punch. How many of us have been in a fight where the other person fell down? What if that person fell and hit his head on the sidewalk killing him? Would you expect to be hit with the same 25 years to life for an accident as a person who intentionally killed someone?

That said, I feel he should get at least 10 years because it wasn't a mutual fight and it was gross negligence on top of being fueled by the attacker's homophobia.

[Aokiji]

This type of militant homophobia seems to be everywhere.

Type homophobia in google images and see what is everywhere.

[Pilaf]

Well you know what I mean..it's not exactly macho to punch a poof.

You'd might as well kick babies.

It's like guys who think they're king kong because they have a deer head hanging on the wall.

Yeah okay tough guy..you put the gun down and kill a deer in hand to hand combat and THEN maybe you're tough.

[Krory]

I am completely appalled and yet completely unsurprised.

Leave it to South Carolina...

Intending to kill the man or not, I doubt the scumbag regrets that the victim died.

[KuronoX54]

I'm surprised BI! doesn't live there. A state where you can kill a gay man and get less jail time than internet fraud sounds right up his alley.
wow .....Damn!

[Aokiji]

Well you know what I mean..it's not exactly macho to punch a poof.

You'd might as well kick babies.

It's like guys who think they're king kong because they have a deer head hanging on the wall.

Yeah okay tough guy..you put the gun down and kill a deer in hand to hand combat and THEN maybe you're tough.

:rotfl I'm sorry, but that's extremely childish. Also, shooting a deer is by no means easy, even with a gun.

[Banhammer]

After actually reading the news story (it helps) I have to side with Hugo. While the circumstances surrounding the altercation was despicable, labeling the guy a murderer and expecting a murderer's punishment is a slippery slope. Frankly, if you ignore the fact the victim was gay and the attacker was a homophobic dick, this could happen to anyone. It was one punch. How many of us have been in a fight where the other person fell down? What if that person fell and hit his head on the sidewalk killing him? Would you expect to be hit with the same 25 years to life for an accident as a person who intentionally killed someone?

That said, I feel he should get at least 10 years because it wasn't a mutual fight and it was gross negligence on top of being fueled by the attacker's homophobia.
:imslow

If you take out the fact that he was gay and the other guy was a homophobic dick, I don't think the first one would be dead.

[Adonis]

:imslow

If you take out the fact that he was gay and the other guy was a homophobic dick, I don't think the first one would be dead.

No, what I'm saying is that you guys are asking for solely the result to be punished rather than factoring in the intent. Even if the attacker was a dick bashing a gay dude, there's nothing that shows he intended to kill him and the death was "bad luck" as Hugo put it. It's not like he "went to town" on the guy; he punched him ONCE and the guy's head, unfortunately, hit the ground too hard. Ask yourself this: let's say the guy attacked the other for a reason that had nothing to do with his sexuality. Let's say he suspected the other guy of messing around with his girlfriend. The attack, otherwise, occurred the exact same way. Would you be as quick to label it murder? It's involuntary manslaughter regardless of what provoked the attacked.

And I've already agreed the sentence should have been at least 10 years.

[Hollow'd Heart]

Only 2.5?! If it's murder, "accident" or not they should be given 10 to Life :pek Stupid prick of a judge

[Banhammer]

No, what I'm saying is that you guys are asking for the result to be punished rather than the intent.
This is one of the most important things in a murder case. Wether it's self defense, insanity, hate crime, premeditated, the motive is half of the case, and it makes all the difrnce
Motive, Means and Oportunity..
Without motive, no judge will even look twice before dismissing

Even if the attacker was a dick bashing a gay dude, there's nothing that shows he intended to kill him and the death was "bad luck" as Hugo put it. It's not like he "went to town" on the guy; he punched him ONCE and the guy's head, unfortunately, hit the ground too hardGay bashing is a hate crime, and he is therefore extremly likely to repeat the ofense. Plus, because of his hatefull actions, a man died. His lack of respect presented consequences for the victim and his family, that would not have happened if he obeyed the law.
There's no "oops, sorry :imslow" about this.
[QUOTE]
Ask yourself this: let's say the guy attacked the other for a reason that had nothing to do with his sexuality. Let's say he suspected the other guy of messing around with his girlfriend. Would you be as quick to label it murder?
It has nothing to do with it. One is a crime of passion, the other one is a hate crime.
And I assure you, that man would go to jail far more than a year and a half anyway.

[Aokiji]

This is one of the most important things in a murder case. Wether it's self defense, insanity, hate crime, premeditated, the motive is half of the case, and it makes all the difrnce
Motive, Means and Oportunity..
Without motive, no judge will even look twice before dismissing
Gay bashing is a hate crime, and he is therefore extremly likely to repeat the ofense. Plus, because of his hatefull actions, a man died. His lack of respect presented consequences for the victim and his family, that would not have happened if he obeyed the law.
There's no "oops, sorry :imslow" about this.
[QUOTE]
Ask yourself this: let's say the guy attacked the other for a reason that had nothing to do with his sexuality. Let's say he suspected the other guy of messing around with his girlfriend. Would you be as quick to label it murder?
It has nothing to do with it. One is a crime of passion, the other one is a hate crime.
And I assure you, that man would go to jail far more than a year and a half anyway.

Granted.

Still, I think Adonis' analogy is good. He punched him once. It WAS a whoops moment. The stupid motive and the result only worsen the punishment.

[Adonis]

This is one of the most important things in a murder case. Wether it's self defense, insanity, hate crime, premeditated, the motive is half of the case, and it makes all the difrnce
Motive, Means and Oportunity..
Without motive, no judge will even look twice before dismissing

The motive here wasn't to kill.


Gay bashing is a hate crime, and he is therefore extremly likely to repeat the ofense. Plus, because of his hatefull actions, a man died. His lack of respect presented consequences for the victim and his family, that would not have happened if he obeyed the law.
There's no "oops, sorry :imslow" about this.

I'm not arguing the guy shouldn't be charged with a hate crime, I implied it in the post I said he should have gotten at least 10 years.

And there was an "oops" factor; just not in the way your thinking. He punched the guy ONCE and, based on what I inferred from the attacker's account of the incident, he had no idea the victim was at risk of dying and merely believe he knocked the guy out (thus, it's logical he wouldn't walk away thinking the guy was alive if he intended to kill him.) Essentially, he hit a guy and the guy fell the wrong way.

I'm saying that there are contexts where the same events and result could have transpired under different circumstances and the verdict should be reflective of that. Want to slap on a charge of hate crime, fine, but that should be a separate charge.




And I assure you, that man would go to jail far more than a year and a half anyway.

I've already expressed I believe the sentence was too short so don't attempt to throw that in my face.

[Aokiji]

The motive here wasn't to kill.

Motive=/=intent.

Motive=reason for a crime. his motive=the guy being a fag.

[Adonis]

Motive=/=intent.

Motive=reason for a crime. his motive=the guy being a fag.

Thanks for correcting me.

You'd think I'd know this as many episodes of Law and Order: SVU I've watched.

Don't do all your learning from TV, kids :zaru

[iLurk]

This has inspired me to kill straight people.

:LOS

[Adonis]

This has inspired me to kill straight people.

:LOS

DONT! :uwah

My uncle had the same bright idea except with white women; he got the chair.

[EvanNJames]

South Carolina, you say...?

I'm honestly not surprised.:notrust

[Banhammer]

South Carolina
I was born and raised
The moist and funky clima
Made me bash the gayz
yada yada yada neighborhood
Prince of bel-air.

[Dimezanime88]

But there is still the case of negligence here.If you punch someone and the guy goes down hard,you'd probably check up on the guy,if he's unconscious or whatever and call in an ambulance.

Ah, no. Why the fuck would I want to help out the guy that I just fought? That's a win right there, and then I'm gone. The only time I would check is if I accidentally punched the person; that's not what happened in this case.

Beating the shit out of someone who dies later on=/=putting his lights out intentionally. One is way worse.

...Dude, are you serious?

[Fojos]

He wasn't intending to kill him, so I believe the punishment was rather fair. You can't put someone in prison because they're an asshole. A few years should have been added for hate-crime, but this still wasn't murder, it was manslaughter.

When you get 5 years for killing an animal, it is because it's done on purpose.

[Diceman]

Ah, no. Why the fuck would I want to help out the guy that I just fought? That's a win right there, and then I'm gone. The only time I would check is if I accidentally punched the person; that's not what happened in this case.

He didnt fight him.He called him a fag,and punched him in the face.He hit the ground hard.He didnt bother even calling for an ambulance.

[Dimezanime88]

He didnt fight him.He called him a fag,and punched him in the face.He hit the ground hard.He didnt bother even calling for an ambulance.

But he did purposely throw a punch, right? So even with that, why would I want to check up on the person?

[Saufsoldat]

But he did purposely throw a punch, right? So even with that, why would I want to check up on the person?

Because the law says you have to?

Last time I checked "I just won a fight and checking on the loser after a fight is not cool" weren't mitigating circumstances.

[Diceman]

But he did purposely throw a punch, right? So even with that, why would I want to check up on the person?

Yeah,just sticking around and bragging with your buddies is better,especially if the guy is unconscious after hitting his head on the pavement

[Tainted_reflection]

I'm disgusted by this, and yet not surprised.

[Aokiji]

Because the law says you have to?

Stupid reason if you ask me, couple of decades before the law in your country said that you were to snitch on jews n gypsies. That means those that helped their Jewish/gypsie/homo/commie neighbors were assholes. :zaru

Or in other words: never say "because the law says so"

Also, I'm with Dimes here. If I gave a fuck about his well being I wouldn't have punched him in the first place. It's like adding extra years in prison for a rapist because he didn't satisfy his victim.

[Believe It!]

http://cmsimg.greenvilleonline.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=BS&Date=20080611&Category=NEWS06&ArtNo=80611025&Ref=AR&Profile=1001&MaxW=550&MaxH=650&title=0
Stephen Moller

He should be given the death penalty. Believe it!

He intended to do harm, he did. The victim died from the attack. Therefore his life should be forfeited as well.

But lets talk about the ruling and the sentence that he actually got from this piece of crap "judge". He got a 5 year sentence with 3 years served, suspended probation for 3 years, 30 days of public service, substance abuse counseling, random drug/alcohol testing, and anger management.

Now read that and tell me that isn't the liberal's ideology. To give him a reduced sentence with community service and anger management classes? This ruling is the result of the weak, sissified, liberal lawyer agenda that has softened our courts of law!

I see some of you talking about me as if I would be on this murder's side. Think again! What am I talking about, you need to THINK period! I believe in the laws of the Bible! If the court had ruled in line with God's law, this murdering bastard would be getting executed for his crime! YOU CANNOT DENY THIS FACT!!!

And as for "hate crime" laws, if he were charged with a hate crime, he would avoid the death penalty. But if he is given the death penalty, then what need do we have for hate crime laws? Hate crime "laws" are just more sissified liberal laws that weaken the justice system in America!!! You libs need to wake up! All crimes of these kind are hate crimes. This murderer had hate in his heart when he chose to throw that punch. What difference does it make if the victim was gay, or straight, or white, or black, or Christian, or atheist? The victim is dead and his family members are now the grieving victims, who now have no restitution or peace because the killer got away with it!

Thank you liberals, for getting a killer off scott free. Thank you liberals, for making a "victim" out of the murderer.

And if you don't like what I said, you can save all your hateful comments for the Westboro Craptists who will probably picket the victim's funeral. I'm sure you'd fit right in with them!

BELIEVE IT!

[Saufsoldat]

Stupid reason if you ask me, couple of decades before the law in your country said that you were to snitch on jews n gypsies. That means those that helped their Jewish/gypsie/homo/commie neighbors were assholes. :zaru

Or in other words: never say "because the law says so"

So you think neglecting unconscious victims of violence shouldn't be a crime? Gotcha.

Also, I'm with Dimes here. If I gave a fuck about his well being I wouldn't have punched him in the first place. It's like adding extra years in prison for a rapist because he didn't satisfy his victim.

But then it wasn't an "accident". Then he had the intent of seriously harming the victim, hazarding the consequences. I don't see how such a short penalty is justified then.

[Diceman]

Stupid reason if you ask me, couple of decades before the law in your country said that you were to snitch on jews n gypsies. That means those that helped their Jewish/gypsie/homo/commie neighbors were assholes. :zaru

Or in other words: never say "because the law says so"

Also, I'm with Dimes here. If I gave a fuck about his well being I wouldn't have punched him in the first place. It's like adding extra years in prison for a rapist because he didn't satisfy his victim.

Past laws really dont matter.The main issue here is accountability and responsibility for the actions you have undertaken.
And keep throwing false analogies around.By that logic.next time I punch someone I better kill him or I'll get a few more years in the joint:zaru

[Aokiji]

http://cmsimg.greenvilleonline.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=BS&Date=20080611&Category=NEWS06&ArtNo=80611025&Ref=AR&Profile=1001&MaxW=550&MaxH=650&title=0
Stephen Moller

He should be given the death penalty. Believe it!

He intended to do harm, he did. The victim died from the attack. Therefore his life should be forfeited as well.

But lets talk about the ruling and the sentence that he actually got from this piece of crap "judge". He got a 5 year sentence with 3 years served, suspended probation for 3 years, 30 days of public service, substance abuse counseling, random drug/alcohol testing, and anger management.

Now read that and tell me that isn't the liberal's ideology. To give him a reduced sentence with community service and anger management classes? This ruling is the result of the weak, sissified, liberal lawyer agenda that has softened our courts of law!

I see some of you talking about me as if I would be on this murder's side. Think again! What am I talking about, you need to THINK period! I believe in the laws of the Bible! If the court had ruled in line with God's law, this murdering bastard would be getting executed for his crime! YOU CANNOT DENY THIS FACT!!!

And as for "hate crime" laws, if he were charged with a hate crime, he would avoid the death penalty. But if he is given the death penalty, then what need do we have for hate crime laws? Hate crime "laws" are just more sissified liberal laws that weaken the justice system in America!!! You libs need to wake up! All crimes of these kind are hate crimes. This murderer had hate in his heart when he chose to throw that punch. What difference does it make if the victim was gay, or straight, or white, or black, or Christian, or atheist? The victim is dead and his family members are now the grieving victims, who now have no restitution or peace because the killer got away with it!

Thank you liberals, for getting a killer off scott free. Thank you liberals, for making a "victim" out of the murderer.

And if you don't like what I said, you can save all your hateful comments for the Westboro Craptists who will probably picket the victim's funeral. I'm sure you'd fit right in with them!

BELIEVE IT!

Last time I checked, death penalty was only for those that are the lowest of scum, for example like these subhumans, who shot someone because he bumped them.

So you think neglecting unconscious victims of violence shouldn't be a crime? Gotcha.



But then it wasn't an "accident". Then he had the intent of seriously harming the victim, hazarding the consequences. I don't see how such a short penalty is justified then.

1. No I never said that. I just said that, "because the law says so" is a pretty poor way to debate.

2. I also never said that the short penalty was OK. Hey, at least it's better than in Germany, where you can be convicted for rape, yet not spend a single day inside. :zaru

Past laws really dont matter.The main issue here is accountability and responsibility for the actions you have undertaken.
And keep throwing false analogies around.By that logic.next time I punch someone I better kill him or I'll get a few more years in the joint:zaru

How was my analogy false? I'm saying that subjectively speaking, checking up on someone after punching him, is kinda well weird.

Also, you're analogy is way harder to get. :oh

[Diceman]

How was my analogy false? I'm saying that subjectively speaking, checking up on someone after punching him, is kinda well weird.

Also, you're analogy is way harder to get. :oh

He was on the ground,unconscious.If he had the time goofing off about it with his friends,he must've had the time to call a friggin ambulance.

I used your logic,go figure

[Believe It!]

Last time I checked, death penalty was only for those that are the lowest of scum, for example like these subhumans, who shot someone because he bumped them.

No, it is for those who set out to commit a crime against another person or people, and kill them.

[Aokiji]

He was on the ground,unconscious.If he had the time goofing off about it with his friends,he must've had the time to call a friggin ambulance.

I used your logic,go figure

Well, such deaths aren't really frequent.....

[Diceman]

Well, such deaths aren't really frequent.....

Deaths due to negligence arent frequent?:huh
And I really dont understand what frequency has to do with it.

[Saufsoldat]

1. No I never said that. I just said that, "because the law says so" is a pretty poor way to debate.

It's just one of those "duh" laws. No sane person could possibly disagree with them.

2. I also never said that the short penalty was OK. Hey, at least it's better than in Germany, where you can be convicted for rape, yet not spend a single day inside. :zaru

Hey, at least it's better than in Turkey where German boys, who almost had consensual sex with underage Britons pretending to be at a legal age, are being held in prisons under miserable circumstances. :zaru

[Amaretti]

The issue here is that there are apparently no laws against hate crime in SC.

The mother's right. The justice system there is a joke.

[Dimezanime88]

Yeah,just sticking around and bragging with your buddies is better,especially if the guy is unconscious after hitting his head on the pavement

I can't defend the dude's actions thereafter the punch, but like I said in my first reply, I would've been gone.

[Believe It!]

The issue here is that there are apparently no laws against hate crime in SC.

Good! There should be no such thing as a "hate crime" law. Why do some people deserve more protection than others?

"Hate crime" laws are unconstitutional because they provide unequal protection under the law.

The mother's right. The justice system there is a joke.

And that is because of liberalism.

[Willaien]

So, Believe It!, tell me, why should more heinous crimes not be more punishable?

[Catterix]

Well at least he got something.

My boyfriend was murdered over a year ago in an act of hate crime and his killers haven't even been caught.

[Willaien]

Well at least he got something.

My boyfriend was murdered over a year ago in an act of hate crime and his killers haven't even been caught.

Is this due to lack of evidence, or intentional bumbling incompetence on behalf of the police, or a combination thereof?

[The Cheat]

He should gotten 10 years at least.

[Believe It!]

So, Believe It!, tell me, why should more heinous crimes not be more punishable?

... What are you talking about? Didn't you even read my post? I said this murdering bastard should be executed for killing that person.

[Willaien]

... What are you talking about? Didn't you even read my post? I said this murdering bastard should be executed for killing that person.

You said that hate crime laws are wrong, and I ask why more heinous crimes should not be punished harsher?

[Byakkö]

It doesn't look like he intended to kill the gay guy, but it does sound like a hate crime.

[Ryuk]

He obviously didn't intend to kill the guy.

That doesn't matter he still killed him.

[Believe It!]

You said that hate crime laws are wrong, and I ask why more heinous crimes should not be punished harsher?

How is a crime against a homosexual more heinous than the same crime against a heterosexual?

[Gunners]

2.5 years is about as the crime is manslaughter, what more do you want?

Intention to kill does matter somewhat, yes.

However, in English Common Law, there is what is known as the "eggshell skull rule", you should read up on it at Wikipedia.
Which is why he is guilty of manslaughter or at least should be. Intention matters a whole lot not just somewhat.

Murder has the mens rea for intention of death or really serious injury. He didn't intend either so the charge is or should be reduced to manslaughter.

Edit: I change my opinion on the sentence he should received, I would have personally given him 8-10 years in prison ( when you consider the fact that he would be let out in 4-5) as the attack was unprovoked and he didn't seem to give a shit when the guy was passed out on the ground.

On it being a hate crime I am not sure how I feel about it, if you light someone on fire for hell of it, or light someone on fire because of his race, sexuality, creed I don't think the sentence should change you should get punished based on the severity of your actions and whether it was warranted or not. Attacking someone out of hatred isn't warranted.

[Diceman]

How is a crime against a homosexual more heinous than the same crime against a heterosexual?
Hate crimes (also known as bias motivated crimes) occur when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her membership in a certain social group, usually defined by racial group, religion, sexual orientation, disability, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender, gender identity, or political affiliation.

[Gary]

a KILLER is still a killer no matter what so what are thes people thinking ?

[Gunners]

Hate crimes (also known as bias motivated crimes) occur when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her membership in a certain social group, usually defined by racial group, religion, sexual orientation, disability, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender, gender identity, or political affiliation.
That didn't answer his question, which I somewhat agree with.

If I walk on the streets and beat up some random person, how is that better than beating up someone because he is white?

[WalkingNosebleed]

Only 2.5 years? :facepalm

My thoughts exactly, he should have gotten waaaaaaay longer :facepalm

[Diceman]

That didn't answer his question, which I somewhat agree with.

If I walk on the streets and beat up some random person, how is that better than beating up someone because he is white?

You are more likely to repeat the offense,its more likely to provoke retaliation,and you are willingly causing seperation in the public

[Vicious-chan]

guy's a murderer, he could have easily NOT punched him and just minded his own fucking business. Execute him.

[Aokiji]

guy's a murderer, he could have easily NOT punched him and just minded his own fucking business. Execute him.

Excuse me, but you're really retarded.

Going by your logic, I should be executed, because I punched some other guy.

[AestheticizeAnalog]

You said that hate crime laws are wrong, and I ask why more heinous crimes should not be punished harsher?

Why is it more heinous to kill someone for some arbitrary trait like their sexuality, than because you do not like their attitude or want to steal what they have?

A murder done for money is no more noble than one done out of hate for a particular sexual orientation.


Hate crime legislation is simply a means of social engineering.

[cacophony]

he should be like death sentenced. that'll teach him. i bet he'll never kill a gay guy after that.

[Willaien]

Why is it more heinous to kill someone for some arbitrary trait like their sexuality, than because you do not like their attitude or want to steal what they have?

A murder done for money is no more noble than one done out of hate for a particular sexual orientation.


Hate crime legislation is simply a means of social engineering.

Arbitrary distinctions are hard to draw.

The general justification for hate legislation has been that harassment and intimidation, assault, and destruction of property assume a particularly dangerous and socially disruptive character when motivated by bigotry [IE More likely to be repeated]

Challenges to the laws before Appellate Courts, based on 1st and 14th amendment objections, have narrowed hate crime statutes such that they mainly regulate conduct already criminalized and do not criminalize speech alone.

The U.S. Supreme Court in Wisconsin v. Mitchell (1993) confirmed the constitutionality of hate crime statutes. Since then, challenges have been largely rejected.

Judges have converged around the idea that hate crime laws follow the same logic as antidiscrimination laws. Thus, they are understood to provide little scrutiny of motives and instead focus attention on discriminatory conduct (Phillips and Grattet 1999).

[Brokensharingan]

2.5 years is a completely gay sentance. This tit wank should have got around 10 years. The funny thing is he's going to get arse rammed by the people in prison, oh isn't irony fun.

I'm surprised that he got such a low time sentance, can't you get more for DUI and Animal Cruelty?

[Ejaculation Storm]

You said that hate crime laws are wrong, and I ask why more heinous crimes should not be punished harsher?

Because he thinks all murder, regardless of hate crime or not, should be punishable by death. He doesn't care about hate crimes, because in his perfect world, criminals would be executed upon capture.


How is a crime against a homosexual more heinous than the same crime against a heterosexual?

It would be hate crime if a gay man killed a heterosexual just because he's a heterosexual. It's all about motive. Most cases of simple murder or assault result from motivation such as sleeping with one's life, etc. etc. While murdering someone because of this is wrong, we can see there IS motivation for the murder. The murderer has a reason to be angry, and at least to him, has a reason to take revenge.

A hate crime is the simple murder or assault of someone, even someone you don't know, just because you don't like their skin colour, sexuality, etc. It's not unfair to anyone, because whites, blacks, heteros, gays, anyone can be a victim of hate crime. That doesn't mean we should ignore it when murder and assault are results from simple intolerance or hatred, and there is no real motive for it.

It's like someone who doesn't even know you killing you because you believe in God. Does the murderer have a real motive in your opinion? Would you not consider it a hate crime, if someone was willing to take your life simply because of your own harmless beliefs?

Exactly.

[DemarcationOne]

Christians believe jews should go to hell?....christ, I did not know that. D1

As for the 2.5 year sentence:(

In the case of the death of a victim, they are still responsible (thus why an accident can result in a criminal sentence), but there are varying degrees of punishment depending on whether there was intent to cause harm or death.

[Gunners]

You are more likely to repeat the offense,its more likely to provoke retaliation,and you are willingly causing seperation in the public
If someone kills for fun he would likely commit the same action again.

Anyway I concluded my opinion on hate crimes, that they should remain in the law. It acts as an aggravating factor when sentencing someone the same way having no reason for the crime would act as an aggravating factor. It's all balance.

[auto-matic]

sorry but less then three years is not Justifiable, he used a affensive term like "fag" and "MoFo" and he was drunk more like 6 years would've been Appropriate

[Willaien]

Christians believe jews should go to hell?....christ, I did not know that. D1

As for the 2.5 year sentence:(

Not necessarily, not all do. That is why I added the "If" qualifier to the last bit.

[EvilMoogle]

The law generally differentiates between levels of criminal culpability based on the mens rea, or state of mind. This is particularly true within the law of homicide, where murder requires either the intent to kill—a state of mind called malice—or malice aforethought, which may involve an unintentional killing but with a willful disregard for life.
...
Involuntary manslaughter ... occurs where there is no intention to kill or cause serious injury but death is due to recklessness or criminal negligence.

Based on the OP his intent didn't seem to be to kill him, only to hurt him. The guy's an ass -- I doubt I'd shed a tear if he died in jail -- but according to the law he fits the definition of "involuntary manslaughter" better than voluntary manslaughter or homicide.

Personally I'm against "hate crime" legislature I think crimes and punishments should be defined regardless of specific targets (personally I'm of the opinion that all homicides are hate crimes).

[KakashiX]

sorry but less then three years is not Justifiable, he used a affensive term like "fag" and "MoFo" and he was drunk more like 6 years would've been Appropriate

People say those words to anyone, gay or not. As far as being drunk then he would probably get less time then someone who wasn't since when your drunk your intoxicated and not in control of your actions.

[Watchman]

People say those words to anyone, gay or not. As far as being drunk then he would probably get less time then someone who wasn't since when your drunk your intoxicated and not in control of your actions.

So because some black people refer to each jokily as "nigger", if someone attacks a black man whilst screaming "I'm going to fucking kill you, you fucking nigger!" it's okay?

[Adonis]

So because some black people refer to each jokily as "nigger", if someone attacks a black man whilst screaming "I'm going to fucking kill you, you fucking nigger!" it's okay?

Is attacking a black man, or anyone, while screaming anything okay?

[Krory]

Of course it is. They're black.

[Spencer_Gator]

thats really sad

[Watchman]

Is attacking a black man, or anyone, while screaming anything okay?

IMO, no. I was just addressing that point to KakashiX, who seems to think that because some people use the word "fag" amongst themselves, it's not so bad that the guy was screaming "fag" at his victim.

[Gecka]

And humanity gets knocked down one more notch in my mind

[Vermillionage]

This is a shame:pek..

sometimes I really wonder about modern justice.....:edu

Gay or not gay... it really is a shame to only give 2, 5 years for murder:(

[BeyonderZ]

No intent...

[BeyonderZ]

This is a shame:pek..

sometimes I really wonder about modern justice.....:edu

Gay or not gay... it really is a shame to only give 2, 5 years for murder:(

Then why don't you try to change it? why not become a leader of the people and make sure people are put in prison for their whole life.

[Vermillionage]

uhm.. Because I don't have the answers to all problems....

[Brokensharingan]

Then why don't you try to change it? why not become a leader of the people and make sure people are put in prison for their whole life.

You're a complete spaz, put someone in jail for their entire life whats to stop them from killing people in jail? What's left to fear? Nothing, you can grab a knife and stab the person nearest you, you won't get any extra time for it and that's that.

[dummy plug]

whats wrong with people these days :oh

[Psallo a Cappella]

Well that's unlucky. A one-hit KO in a drunken bar fight. I have honestly /never/ heard of that.

[Believe It!]

Arbitrary distinctions are hard to draw.

The general justification for hate legislation has been that harassment and intimidation, assault, and destruction of property assume a particularly dangerous and socially disruptive character when motivated by bigotry [IE More likely to be repeated]

So what? All motives for those crimes are disruptive and undesirable. A person who harasses another because he or she doesn't like him or her based on personality traits is no different than one who does so based on one characteristic. Hate is hate, and a crime is a crime.

Challenges to the laws before Appellate Courts, based on 1st and 14th amendment objections, have narrowed hate crime statutes such that they mainly regulate conduct already criminalized and do not criminalize speech alone.

Doesn't matter. It is unequal protection under the law. A white beat up by a white will get less justice than a black beat up by a white.

The U.S. Supreme Court in Wisconsin v. Mitchell (1993) confirmed the constitutionality of hate crime statutes. Since then, challenges have been largely rejected.

Which is wrong. It is a clear violation of the 14th amendment.

Judges have converged around the idea that hate crime laws follow the same logic as antidiscrimination laws.

Which is crap, because those prevent discrimination against anyone, while hate crime laws don't apply if the perpetrator is in the same class as the victim.

Thus, they are understood to provide little scrutiny of motives and instead focus attention on discriminatory conduct (Phillips and Grattet 1999).

Which places certain thoughts of crime as being more evil than others even if the crime itself results in the same outcome. Like I said, unequal protection under the law.

Because he thinks all murder, regardless of hate crime or not, should be punishable by death. He doesn't care about hate crimes, because in his perfect world, criminals would be executed upon capture.

Upon capture? No. I believe in due process and the right to have a speedy trial and to be judged by a jury of peers. I only believe in capital punishment after all those things and after the person is proven to be guilty. And even then I think the person should get at least 5 years in prison.

It would be hate crime if a gay man killed a heterosexual just because he's a heterosexual.

I call BS on that claim. But even if it is true, so what? If he kills someone else, then why the hell do we need a hate crime conviction against him? The murderer should be executed. What is a hate crime punishment going to do, kill him twice?

It's all about motive. Most cases of simple murder or assault result from motivation such as sleeping with one's life, etc. etc. While murdering someone because of this is wrong, we can see there IS motivation for the murder.

Look. I don't care what the motive for murder is. What matters is the crime and the damage it does to society. You're talking about harsher punishments for "thought crimes". And that's wrong.

The murderer has a reason to be angry, and at least to him, has a reason to take revenge.

Doesn't make it any less wrong than a murder based on hatred of homosexuality.

A hate crime is the simple murder or assault of someone, even someone you don't know, just because you don't like their skin colour, sexuality, etc. It's not unfair to anyone, because whites, blacks, heteros, gays, anyone can be a victim of hate crime.

Yes it is unfair to those who are a part of the same class as the one who wronged them. Tell me, what happens if a homosexual beats up another homosexual? Does the attacker get the same punishment as a straight attacker would have? NO? Well why not? The crime is exactly the same.

That doesn't mean we should ignore it when murder and assault are results from simple intolerance or hatred, and there is no real motive for it.

It doesn't matter what the motive for it is. A crime is a crime. Period.

It's like someone who doesn't even know you killing you because you believe in God. Does the murderer have a real motive in your opinion? Would you not consider it a hate crime, if someone was willing to take your life simply because of your own harmless beliefs?

I would consider it no worse than someone who wanted to kill me for the thrill of it, or because he's feeling pissed off at the world that day.

[Brokensharingan]

Oh Believe it you are your ways:zaru

[Willaien]

So what? All motives for those crimes are disruptive and undesirable. A person who harasses another because he or she doesn't like him or her based on personality traits is no different than one who does so based on one characteristic. Hate is hate, and a crime is a crime.



Doesn't matter. It is unequal protection under the law. A white beat up by a white will get less justice than a black beat up by a white.



Which is wrong. It is a clear violation of the 14th amendment.



Which is crap, because those prevent discrimination against anyone, while hate crime laws don't apply if the perpetrator is in the same class as the victim.



Which places certain thoughts of crime as being more evil than others even if the crime itself results in the same outcome. Like I said, unequal protection under the law.

Have a problem with the examples? Take them up with the courts. Those were all precedent examples of hate crime legislation being upheld.

[Gaawa-chan]

Shouldn't this have been charged as a hate crime? Meh... bastard...

[Diceman]

Shouldn't this have been charged as a hate crime? Meh... bastard...

SC doesnt have hate-crime law thingy

[Gaawa-chan]

SC doesnt have hate-crime law thingy

Ah, I see... :facepalm