Hate-crime = Thought crime?

quote:

---

In law, especially criminal law, a motive is the cause that moves people to induce a certain action. Motive, in itself, is not an element of any given crime; however, the legal system typically allows motive to be proven in order to make plausible the accused's reasons for committing a crime, at least when those motives may be obscure or hard to identify with.

​

The law technically distinguishes between motive and intent. "Intent" in criminal law is synonymous with mens rea, which means no more than the specific mental purpose to perform a deed that is forbidden by a criminal statute, or the reckless disregard of whether the law will be violated.[citation needed] "Motive" describes instead the reasons in the accused's background and station in life that are supposed to have induced the crime.

---

from wikiThe law isn't suppose to punish motive, but hate crime laws do.

I've also pointed that out a dozen times or more on this thread to both Straggler and Rrhain. They just totally ignore it and move on as if it just doesn't invalidate a major part of their argument.

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

Not at all. I get all this. I understand completely how you're viewing it.I just see no point in "hate" crime laws. If their purpose is to deter the actions from ever happening again and they don't then they are useless. If they are set up for the purpose of punishing people harsher, then the law is bias. Under any circumstance, any scenario, for any "group."The law is bogus. I believe you, I just don't see how punishing someone harsher for these actions makes any sense. Because I didn't. I cited the one that was relevant to what I was saying. In the context that you explained it, it was similar to the actions that lead up to the civil rights movement. Thats all I was saying, and I said I agreed with you that on a wider scale these things should be addressed. The only thing we disagree on is the means to address them. Punishing someone harsher because of motive is not what the law is supposed to do, no matter how much the action displeases anyone. Vandalism is vandalism, period. The law does not show a bias toward any single act of vandalism, however, if it is found that there is a larger scale problem, then it is up to the community (not the law) to take action. That is how things get solved, not through more prison time. You keep saying that, but how do you think it should do that? Just by increasing the sentencing? Not only is that NOT the job of the law, it doesn't effectively address the problems. Hate crime laws do none of that - if you think they do, then explain how? I recoginze this as your argument, my point is how are they effective? In what way? If as a deterent then give examples. Show me one other area where harsher punishment works as a deterent.As I have pointed out with my example of drugs, more punishment does nothing - people find a way. However, on the contrary, harsher punishments can give the illusion that something is being done, so no other means to fix it will be looked at.If someone askes, "hey, how can we deter people from being bigots?" the answer will be "don't worry, we just punish them harder."Solves nothing. That is done through community actions, not with the law, and especially not through the use of harsher punishment. You are missing my point, I recognize the need to address this, but punishing someone harsher does not address this. In fact, it works opposite in that it gives the illusion that we addressed it.The problems still continue. Sorry bro, but thats bullshit. Nobody buys weed from hardcore sellers, they buy it from the dude that lives in their apartment.It scares no one, just look at the statistics. You can't protect society until you set up an actual, workable system to deter the problems - hate crime laws do nothing of the sort.Not to mention the fact that taking motive into consideration when punishing is not the job of the law.Gotta run, I'll hit the rest later.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

This is what I mean by "hate crimes": What do you mean? Well let me turn your drugs analogy on it's head here. Those who are opportunists but not committed to serious criminal intent will not risk punitive punishments by embroiling themselves in serious crimes. I won't sell drugs to my friends. Primarily because the law treats the selling of drugs as a very serious offence. The bored local kids with spray cans, an inventive turn of phrase and an aggressive demeanour won't target the Mosque that has been the focus of a wider campaign of bigotry. Because the hate law context means these crimes are taken more seriously.If those who are not fuelled by hatred but who might otherwise be tempted to take part in persecuting a localised minority purely because they are an easy target are deterred by the stigma and punishment of hate laws then the laws have succeeded. If those simply inclined to torment an easy taget avoid the focus of a wider campaign of bigotry because they don't want to be mistaken as being part of that then all well and good. Address the wider social issues? No. They need a seperate and more considered approach. Act as a deterrent? I think it does. Certainly in the sense of highlighting the seriousness of a crime to those opportunists who don't have serious criminal intent. As described above. And also below.There are all sorts of things I do, or don't do, because of the law. I wouldn't act as an international drug mule. And that isn't because the money isn't good. I pay my taxes, I wear a seatbelt, I don't drink and drive, I obey the speed limit(ish), etc. etc. etc. etc. Partly out of social conscience. But if I am honest with myself largely because of the law and the fear of the level of punishment imposed.As a counterexample I am quite happy to mountain-bike my way round London like a deranged kamikaze on amphetamines displaying a complete disrespect and total disregard for the rules of the road. Why? Because on the whole the police don't care and when they do decide to tackle my blatant indiscretions the result is an occasional nominal fine and nothing more. If the punishments were harsher and the law actually enforced I would change my behaviour.I believe that people are innately moral in many ways. But I am also of the strong opinion that a society removed of laws and deterring punishments would be a place of complete chaos and bedlam. So to say that laws and punishments have no deterring effect is frankly just silly. And once we have eradicated poverty, solved all of societies ills and removed the need for any laws at all we will live happily every after. Meanwhile over here >>> in the real world: We should try and tackle the realities of socially destructive prejudice operating at the local community level.If community leaders were that effective at preventing crime within their communities we would have little need for many laws. Not just hate laws. The fact is that those who are widely acknowledged as community leaders tend to represent the more moderate elements of their communities. This by definition is not the target group who need to be reached if hate crimes are to be deterred. Also many sub-communities do not have recognised local community leaders who are in a position to fight for their rights at the required social level. Finally, on a purely anecdotal note, I have found those who self appoint themselves as community leaders to be more interested in their own wider political aspirations than the genuine wellbeing of the communities that they proclaim to represent. Wouldn't it be ironic if we ended up hating each other over an argument about hate crimes? Only kidding. Not gonna happen. Pull no punches. As fervent as I get in these debates I participate here primarily for entertainment. A good ding dong is all part of the fun.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

That's what I mean too. Sorry for starting in the middle, but I never said this. I agree wholeheartedly that law and punishment is a required elemnet in any civil society.Now that we got that out of the way... It's interesting that you say this. I have argued in this forum, along side you and others of our shared belief, that it is slightly pathetic for people to claim they only do good, and have morality, ethic, etc., because there is a watchdog in the sky that will punish them for breaking his laws.And yet, in this case, you are taking the same approach as some faithfuls in saying that you don't become a drug mule, or become a complete chaotic social lunatic simply (and in all honesty, as you put it) because the punishment for these actions are too strict.Do you truly stand by that? As the old saying goes, Locks are only there to keep honest people out. I totally agree with this - and this is where such things as hate crime laws come into play. Hate crime laws make it easy for community leaders to ignore that class of society that may be prone to aggression, because, like I have repeatedly stated, they make it seem as though something is being done. Hey even Rocky and Apollo threw a few punches at each other. If we were having this discussion in a bar, at this point we'd both be completely intoxicated and looking for some bigots to beat the shit out of. - Oni

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

Killing? Well take the extreme example why not? Once someone is willing to kill on the basis of irratiobnal hatred they are probably a lost cause to deterrents and the law in general. I am talking largely about lesser crimes here. Vandalism and violence with the intent to intimidate a localised sub-community. "Targeted subjugation" as I have taken to calling it. Why is a violent act with intent to murder any less of a "thought crime" than a violent act with the intent to intimidate those other than the actual individual victim? If intent in both cases is sufficiently evidenced?Do you consider all crimes that incorporate intent and motive as key components to be "thought crimes"? Do you oppose all such legislation on the same grounds? Are you saying that people don't commit crimes that have intended and actual effects that are more far reaching than two random individuals in an isolated event? Are you saying that "targeted subjugation" does not occur. Ever. That it is an unheard of social phenomenon?As much as anything else you seem to have a problem with the actual use of the term "hate crime". If it were translated to the less snappy but more accurate (as I am proposing things anyway) "targeting with intent to to subjugate" would that help matters at all? And by this I mean targeting on the basis of a socially widespread and identifiable prejudicial criteria (race, nationality, sexuality etc.) in order to subjugate a localised sub community.If you are gonna *cough cough* your questions you are gonna need to start answering mine.Edited by Straggler, : Spelling and clarity

Obviously. Well that is not exactly what I said now is it? Like I did say I think people are basically innately moral. I don't think that a recinding of murder laws would result in a everyone killing each other willy nilly. Nor a recinding of rape laws result in women everywhere having to flee the country for safety. For example. But that doesn't mean that we don't need murder laws or rape laws now does it?Why do you pay your taxes in full and on time? Social obligation? A personal devotion to paying your way in society? Or punitive measures taken against tax evaders? If you were offered a million dollars to transport a suitcase of drugs to Europe would you do it? No? Why? Because you are morally opposed to drug use? Don't make me chuckle! You wouldn't do it because you would be royally screwed if caught. Why do you not smoke in public places? Why do you obey speed limits, not drive when drunk and wear a seatbelt? Your inherent internal morality saying "No Oni that would be soooo wrong"? Let's get real here.Do those intent on genuine hate crimes think that what they are doing is wrong and morally unjustifiable? No. They think they are righteous and justified in their actions. That is the problem. That is why the laws are needed. To impose the moral standards of society on those who are not going to adhere to them of their own accord. Well something is being done. But that is not the same as solving the underlying problems. Nor should it ever be viewed as such. On that at least we wholeheartedly agree.But is this the fault of the laws under discussion? Or the short sighted and lazy nature of politicians and self anointed "community leaders"? Anyone genuinely informed of the real issues and who genuinely cares would know better than to stop at the point of implementing a few laws. That is the same for any complex social issue. Not just hate crimes. But do you really think if we get rid of hate laws those same short sighted and lazy administrators will suddenly sit up and start tackling the real issues? You are too cynical to be that naive. Hate laws are a tool in the eternal fight against prejudice. Not the final solution to anything at all. I just spat my beer across the desk. Note to self - Never read an Oni post with a mouth full of beer. Hate based hilarity may ensue.Be good Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

quote:

---

In law, especially criminal law, a motive is the cause that moves people to induce a certain action. Motive, in itself, is not an element of any given crime; however, the legal system typically allows motive to be proven in order to make plausible the accused's reasons for committing a crime, at least when those motives may be obscure or hard to identify with.

​

The law technically distinguishes between motive and intent. "Intent" in criminal law is synonymous with mens rea, which means no more than the specific mental purpose to perform a deed that is forbidden by a criminal statute, or the reckless disregard of whether the law will be violated.[citation needed] "Motive" describes instead the reasons in the accused's background and station in life that are supposed to have induced the crime.

---

from wikiThe law isn't suppose to punish motive, but hate crime laws do.

There should be a punishment, yes, but not more if you raped 'cause you were horny instead of raping because you were abused as a child and have resentment toward women. But punishing the person for the crime instead of the motive also imposes said moral standard. We have laws to punish already. Yes, you are sending someone to jail. But because their motive was defined by the court as "hate" this person gets extra time - that's all that gets done. I think this is the inherent nature of the system.It takes investing time and effort, it takes money and concern, it takes true dedication to get these issues resolved. But its easier to create the euphemism "hate crime" and increase the punishment, and pretend that an effort is being made.That is my problem with these euphamisms, their just bandaids on the problem because those responsible lack the desire to really resolve the issues. And then people speak up for the law as though it was a good thing. It really isn't a good thing when the law was created so that nothing else had to be done.If the mosque gets vandalised and those responsible get caught and sentenced, then, the next month someone else does it and the following month another person does it - everyone getting caught and sentenced - yet the on-going campaign continues, there is obviously a bigger problem in the works.Instead of dealing with these problems, law makers simply increase the jail time for the offenders. There, problem solved.Its a cop-out and we shouldn't be proud of a system like that. That's right, its Friday! Aussie, Aussie, Aussie!!!- Oni

So, do you think that someone who breaks a house window because he doesn't like the race of the family inside should be punished more than someone who breaks a house window for other reasons? If yes, why? [sigh].....[bangs head against wall]......for the 10th time on this thread- they're *both* the same violent act with the same Intent: to murder. The only difference is that they have different Motives. The question is: Why do you think we should start punishing people for their motive? Should we also have "Actual Bodily Harm because of a spilled pint"? What about "vandalism due to boredom?" You've already asked me and I've already replied at least twice to you alone. 1) Intent is treated differently to Motive. Hate crimes are the only crimes where Motive gets punished. 2) I oppose all legislation which criminalises or otherwise inhibits/prohibits peoples' thoughts, opinions and feelings.It seems as you've lost your reading/comprehension ability. Is it the beer? Of course they do. Does it mean that the motive makes the crime worse than it already is? Does someone who got beaten up feel better if their attacker's motive wasn't "subjugation" ? As someone who's been beaten up twice I can tell you that they don't. Show me how hate crime laws actually benefit anyone. No I'm not. What's this got to do with punisihing motive? or anything else? It's a horrific misnomer but that's only a small part of my objection to these laws. It would as long as there also was "targeting with intent to rob", "targeting with intent to intimidate", "targeting just for the hell of it", etc.Also, do you think it would cover school bullying? Because bullies are "targeting with intent to to subjugate" you know! Unlike you, I have been. Multiple times. Now can you show me how hate-crime laws make anything better?

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

But who here is claiming that?What if rather than an individual rapist it is a loose contingent of rapists whose ultimate aim is not rape per se? What if the evidenced aim of these bigots is to intimidate and subjugate local women into not leaving the house because they believe all women are sluts who need to be socially controlled? What if this intimidatory tactic is successful in it's intended effects? Effects that lie well beyond the crime against any one individual woman. Effects that intimidate and subjugate all the women in that community. I am desperately stretching the anolgy here to fit your example but surely you get the point? Punish the crime as if it were an isolated individual event between two random individuals. Yes. Punish the actual crime being committed with subjugating intent and wider effects taken into account? No. Perhaps it is the name you object to? How about "With intent to subjugate"? Does that make a difference? Badly applied laws will be bad laws. But are you really disagreeing with hate laws in principle as I have described them? Or with (your perception of) current application? Are you saying localised subjugating situations do not exist? That such intent cannot be evidenced? Or that wider community context should have no bearing on such issues? Is intent to subjugate important in terms of practical difference to the society and communities that laws are supposed to protect? Or not?What exactly is your objection here? I think laws are part of the solution. Not THE solution. I don't think a few laws will solve any complex social problem. But nor do I think those who should be tackling complex social problems are going to suddenly start doing so because band-aid laws don't exist. A band-aid is a poor solution. But better than ignoring an infected wound and letting it go gangrenous.And this argument applies to ALL laws (supposedly) dealing with complex social environments. Not just hate laws. I disagree but see where you are coming from. But is that now your only objection? That such laws allow stupid and lazy administrators to devolve responsibility? Because if so I think there are better ways of tackling that particular problem than just recinding hate laws that are having some deterring effect in the meantime. I don't believe the world is so filled with genuine haters. Some. But not many. Most "haters" are just opportunists and weak willed bullies who target the vulnerable in their localised communities. I believe that they can be deterred by the seriousness of crime, related social stigma, and harshness of punishment that hate laws facilitate. But those determined to commit genuine crimes of hate will do so. And, if evidenced as such, the should be punitively dealt with to protect society.As much as anything else I think hate laws help seperate the wheat from the chaff in terms of true bigotry and casual opportunists. True. True. I don't disagree with much of your analysis. Just your eventual conclusion regarding the need (or otherwise) for the laws in question.Edited by Straggler, : Spelling and stuff

If it can be evidenced that they are persistently committting such crimes with the wider intent of intimidating a sub section of society rather than just the directly affected individuals - Then yes. Well if the persecution of localised communities of self declared bored people becomes a common and identifiable social phenomenon then maybe we should consider legislating against that actuality. But as things stand I hardly think this is a justifiable or necessary legislative course of action. Do you?Grow up Legend. If you wanna know what I think read my posts to Oni and stop spouting ill informed drivel.

Someone who is persistently committting such crimes will be convicted on multiple counts of that crime.
Why do you think there should be extra punishment on top of the existing one? I hate to break this to you but a significant percentage of crime among youths is caused by boredom. Start getting out your sentencing book my friend. Ill informed drivel ?! What, like "Motive and Intent are treated differently by law" ? Or that "there is more harm than benefit in having hate-crime laws" ?Listen, just because you are unable to justify your support of totalitarian legislation -even to yourself- don't take it out on me!

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

onifre responds to me:

quote:

---

I get what you're asking, but they are not comparable.

---

Incorrect. They are identical. Your complaint is not unique to any crime, let alone hate crimes. Every single law criminalizing activity has been incorrectly applied to somebody, causing a stigma against the person so accused.

quote:

---

Murder is not a euphemism where as "hate" crime is.

---

So? You think being accused of murder is somehow less of a problem than being accused of a hate crime? That if someone is accused of murder with an additional charge of it being a hate crime, that people are going to ignore the murder part of it?

quote:

---

And it is that euphemisms that has the repercussions and not the act itself.

---

Bullshit. Are you seriously claiming that your argument is merely semantics? That if it were called "domestic terrorism" you'd be OK with it? Do you really think people are so stupid as to not understand what the point of a charge of "domestic terrorism" means? That somebody charged with "civil rights violations" isn't going to get the same reaction? The officers involved in the Rodney King beating weren't charged with a "hate crime," and yet LA was under siege for nearly a week after the verdict came back.What is your justification that what we call a crime is significant with regard to how it is perceived?

quote:

---

Mislabelling something a muder 1 or a murder 2 does not affect at a social level, where as mislabelling it a "hate" vs simply calling it a crime, does.

---

And do you have any evidence of this? That being accused of murder doesn't have an effect on how people see you and treat you? That it doesn't cause a rift in the community? The McMartin's weren't charged with a "hate crime," and yet do you really think that anybody is going to look at them the same way again?Take a look at Polanski. The charge against him isn't "rape," but that doesn't seem to phase people. Look at the reaction people had when Whoopi Goldberg tried to make that point. All she did was point out that the legal charge against him isn't "rape" and suddenly everybody was accusing her of trivializing what happened.

quote:

---

Its a crime, period, not a "hate" crime or any other euphemism we choose to label it as.

---

So terrorism isn't a crime. And the merry-go-round spins again. How many times do we have to go through this? A single act can result in multiple charges. And an act that is carried out against an individual as a proxy for the entire group is not the same as an act carried out only against the individual.Again, are you seriously claiming your argument is merely semantics? That if it were called "domestic terrorism," you wouldn't have a problem?

quote:

---

But hate crime affects the entire community at a broader level

---

That's the entire point behind hate crimes laws: These crimes affect not just the person who was directly attacked but the entire community at large. In a just society, we recognize that fact and treat the crime differently than those that affect only the individual they are directed against.

quote:

---

Now, I'm not saying that the person shouldn't be charged with a crime, and if this has a personal affect on their standing in the community then so be it, but calling it a hate crime divides the entire community which was not involved.

---

But that's true for all crimes, regardless of what they're called. Surely you aren't saying that your objection is merely semantic? That if it were called "domestic terrorism" you'd be OK with it. The people are so stupid that they don't know what the point of a charge of "domestic terrorism" really means.

quote:

---

People, from the outside in, are saying what the effects of a single crime has

---

Incorrect. It is the person who committed the crime that is saying what the effects of the single crime have. The prosecution doesn't get to just declare something a hate crime out of some misguided prosecutorial discretion. It has to be proven with evidence. It needs to be presented before a jury who must return a verdict. You don't get charged unless there is some investigation into the crime and the prosecution determines that they think they have enough evidence to successfully prosecute you.That's the way it is with all crime. You don't just get charged with murder. An investigation has to be made into what happened, linking the events to you, and justifying that you had the mens rea to do it. This is done by looking at you and what you did, not just a declaration by the prosecution.Since this is true of all criminal prosecutions, why are you singling out this one as if it were different?Oh, that's right...your racist claim of "liberal white guilt."

quote:

---

yet there is no basis for this opinion

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you? Have we wandered back into RAZD's thread that there is no evidence of anything anywhere and thus the only rational position is "I don't know"? You mean all the evidence presented at trial by the prosecution was just an hallucination? They made it up? It's all a vast conspiracy?Be specific. Why is it that the prosecution seems to be under the impression that they have to prove a charge of a hate crime, that they don't get to just declare it? Why is it that they spend time in court bringing forth evidence that the perpetrator carried out the particular crime with a particular intent of terrorising people if all they have to do is say, "It is! It is!"? And why on earth would the judge allow such a diversion if the point of the trial is simply to show that the defendant did it?

quote:

---

and the results are far from accurate.

---

Says who? You? Why should we believe you? Strange how the prosecution thought they had to prove their case and the jury was under the impression that they had to return a verdict indicating that the case was proven or not. Are you saying that the jury tends to get the verdict wrong? Your own example showed that the jury came back with a "not guilty" verdict, so it would seem that the basis for your entire complaint is contradicted by reality.

quote:

---

So if that's the only point to a hate crime and the only reason for having harsher punishment, yet, it doesn't actually have this effect

---

And since that isn't the only point to a hate crime and it does actually have that effect, your entire argument falls apart.

quote:

---

quote:

---

You don't pay attention to the news much, do you? A gay bar in Atlanta was just raided by the police, in full swat gear, including breaking into an apartment above the bar, without a warrant, to arrest the occupant. A civil suit has been filed against the department.

---

​

Are you saying this was hate motivated? Says who?

---

The jury. And thus, the merry-go-round spins again. How many times do we have to go through this? The prosecution doesn't get to just declare it a hate crime. They have to prove it just like every other crime. They have to bring forth evidence just like every other crime. They have to present it to a jury just like every other crime. And the jury is the one that decides whether or not the case was made, just like every other crime.Why is it you're only complaining about one crime when your justification is applicable to every single crime in existence?The prosecution hopes they can make the charge of murder stick, but they aren't the ones who get to declare it murder. That's for the jury. They wouldn't have brought a charge of murder unless they thought they could prove it through all the evidence they gathered, but it still isn't up to them to decalre it an actual murder: That's for the jury. The jury can come back with a verdict of not guilty or perhaps a guilty verdict to a lesser, included charge of manslaughter.

quote:

---

Are you gonna jump the gun here and say the Atlanta police specifically targeted this group for the sole purpose of them being gay?

---

That certainly seems to be what happened, given the direct statements of the officers during the raid. It certainly explains why they would enter a home without a warrant and without any immediate circumstances to justify such an unconstitutional entry. It isn't like these charges were brought out of the blue. The people who committed the crime left evidence.However, the current case against the police department isn't a "hate crime" but rather a "civil rights violation" case. Hate crimes are criminal cases. Civil rights violations are civil cases. You do understand the difference between them, yes?But, we won't know if the charges stick until it gets brought to trial and the evidence is presented and examined by the jury. They're the only ones who get to make that determination.

quote:

---

Are you gonna guess the motive behind this without letting the jury decide?

---

Huh? What on earth are you talking about? You mean the prosecution isn't allowed to bring charges of murder one because that's a question of motive which requires the jury to make that finding? Stop playing dumb. Stop insulting everybody with this faux charade of stupidity you're displaying.Of course the prosecution needs to come to a determination about what charges to bring. The jury is not responsible for coming up with the charges. It isn't like a jury is called and the prosecution simply puts forth evidence, leaving it to the jury to decide exactly what crime was committed. Since juries are pulled from the general population, they don't know what the legal ramifications are.Instead, the prosecution has the responsibility of determining what the charges are. The prosecution is then challenged to provide evidence that meets the legal standards of what those charges are. The jury is then given the task of determining if the burden of proof has been met.Now, sometimes the jury is given options: Is it murder or is it manslaughter? But even if they are, they are only allowed to consider the specific charges that the prosecution has presented. The prosecution has to make a choice: Do they go with both possible charges and risk that the defendant only gets convicted of the lesser charge? Or do they go with only the more severe charge and risk that the defendant go free? If the prosecution only decides to bring charges of murder, the jury may instead be of the opinion that while the defendant did it, the prosecution has not proven a case sufficient to justify a charge of murder. They do not have the discretion to reduce the charge to manslaughter or reckless endangerment.Now, since that's the case with all crime, why are you picking on this one? Until you start protesting about a lawyer being allowed to bring a charge of murder "without letting the jury decide," then we'll start believing you that that's really your issue.

quote:

---

Whats your point with this story?

---

Are you incapable of remembering your own words? My comment was made in direct response to your statement: Do you not remember making that query?The point of that story is that the very governmental institutions that we have put in place to protect the equal rights of all citizens in this country are the very ones involved in terrorising certain segments of the community. And the hate crimes laws we have are designed to combat that reality by allowing the federal government to step in where the local officials won't.

quote:

---

Do you have evidence pertaining to this case that somehow changes the findings of the internal investigation?

---

Yes. The Ft. Worth police department changed their policies as a result of the raid. Strange that they would do that if they didn't do anything wrong. Their justification for why they did what they did changed multiple times during the course of the investigation.

quote:

---

Or are you judging it from the outside in?

---

Since you don't even know what I'm referring to, shouldn't you apply that sneer to yourself?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Are you really that naive?

---

​

To what?

---

To your claim of "Who is intimidating who?" Really, are you that incapable of remembering your own argument?

quote:

---

You have proven nothing with your straw man cases

---

Ah, so the cops didn't raid the gay bars under pretenses of alcohol violations and public sex and wind up arresting nobody? Strange how even though the cops had undercover people inside the bars at the time the raids were scheduled to take place (and note, the raids were specifically scheduled ahead of time) and admitted that they hadn't seen any violations of any laws taking place, the raids happened anyway. Are you saying the police have a duty to carry out a scheduled raid when their own investigative personnel are telling them that no criminal activity is taking place?"The Family" (also known as "C Street") has been working tooth and nail to get the "kill the gays" legislation passed in Uganda. Do you really think that's a strawman?Are you really that naive?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

---

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.