Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Fly320s on June 16, 2017, 02:45:29 PM
-
http://www.guns.com/2017/06/15/law-signed-making-attacks-on-police-in-texas-a-hate-crime/?utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A+Trending+Content&utm_content=594357c604d3013c65aa70c5&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter
Saw this article being talked about on Ar15.com's Facebook page. The vast majority of commenters were oppossed to the new law, which surpised and impressed me.
-
With 23 years in the system, I am opposed to all of the thought crimes, meaning the "hate" crimes. Seems to me that you should be punishing the criminal conduct, not the motive. The class/category/gender/race of the victim shouldn't matter any more than the class/category/gender/race of the offender.
-
Some animals are more equal than others...
-
With 23 years in the system, I am opposed to all of the thought crimes, meaning the "hate" crimes. Seems to me that you should be punishing the criminal conduct, not the motive. The class/category/gender/race of the victim shouldn't matter any more than the class/category/gender/race of the offender.
^^^^^^^^^^This. So much this....
-
I am opposed to all of the thought crimes, meaning the "hate" crimes. Seems to me that you should be punishing the criminal conduct, not the motive. The class/category/gender/race of the victim shouldn't matter any more than the class/category/gender/race of the offender.
Totally agree.
-
With 23 years in the system, I am opposed to all of the thought crimes, meaning the "hate" crimes. Seems to me that you should be punishing the criminal conduct, not the motive. The class/category/gender/race of the victim shouldn't matter any more than the class/category/gender/race of the offender.
Or occupation ...
-
Or occupation ...
Except for judges and magistrates. They should get special treatment. =D
-
Except for judges and magistrates. They should get special treatment. =D
I got some "special treatment" for that class.....
=D
-
I got some "special treatment" for that class.....
=D
You bring the tar, I'll bring the feathers.
-
I very much agree that hate crimes are BS. I guess it is one of those things that people find easy to agree with if they don't bother to think it through. Along with DUI laws, I don't see this changing any time soon.
I got an email today with a wrap up of gun related bills in the recent legislative session. No constitutional carry, but some good improvements. The law eliminating a lot of knife restrictions passed also.
Your NRA-ILA previously reported that Governor Greg Abbott signed two important pro-Second Amendment measures passed by the Texas Legislature during the recent 140-day session into law: Senate Bill 16, priority legislation of Lt. Governor Dan Patrick that slashes the cost of an original License To Carry from $140 to $40 and reduces the price of a renewal LTC from $70 to $40 to bring fees down to among the lowest in the nation; and House Bill 1819 which revises Texas statutes to track federal law regarding ownership and possession of firearm sound suppressors. [The Texas Penal Code currently requires these devices to be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives. If the Hearing Protection Act that eliminates this federal requirement were to pass Congress before the Texas Legislature meets again in 2019, suppressor owners would have no way of complying with state law and could be guilty of a felony offense without this important change.] An amendment was added to HB 1819 in the Senate to clarify that non-NFA, short-barreled firearms with a pistol grip -- such as the Mossberg 590 Shockwave -- are not unlawful to sell or own in Texas. The Lone Star State is one of just two states where this particular gun cannot currently be sold lawfully. Both laws take effect on September 1, 2017.
Governor Abbott has now also signed the following bills into law, which also have an effective date of September 1:
Senate Bill 263 repeals the minimum caliber requirement (.32) for demonstrating handgun proficiency during the range instruction portion of the License To Carry course. This unnecessary provision negatively impacts LTC applicants with hand injuries or arthritis who would benefit from being able to use a smaller caliber handgun.
Senate Bill 1566 contains provisions from HB 1692 and SB 1942 to allow employees of school districts, open-enrollment charter schools and private elementary or secondary schools who possess valid LTCs to transport and store firearms out of sight in their locked cars and trucks. These employees had been left out of the 2011 law banning employer policies restricting the lawful possession of firearms in private motor vehicles.
Senate Bill 2065 includes language from HB 421 and HB 981 to allow volunteers providing security at places of worship to be exempt from the requirements of the Private Security Act. This could include License To Carry holders approved by congregation leaders, since the prohibition on possession of firearms by LTCs at places of worship is only enforceable if the location is posted or verbal notice is given.
House Bill 1935 repeals the prohibition on the possession or carrying of knives such as daggers, dirks, stilettos and Bowies, by eliminating them from the prohibited weapons section of the Texas Penal Code. Restrictions remain in place for possession or carrying of knives with a blade over 5 ½ inches long in public places and penalties are enhanced for carrying those in the same locations where the possession of firearms is prohibited, generally.
House Bill 3784 allows persons approved by the Texas Department of Public Safety to offer an online course to cover the classroom portion of the required training for a License To Carry. The measure also exempts active military personnel and veterans who have received firearm instruction as part of their service within the last 10 years to be exempt from the range instruction portion of the LTC course.
I think they also passed a law setting up a $200 fine for texting while driving. At least I think that passed. Not sure what I think about that one.
-
The current spate of "hate crime" laws was prompted by the Texas murder of James Byrd in 1998; three white guys dragged the black man to his death behind a pickup truck.
WITHOUT any hate crime laws, the state of Texas caught and convicted the three murderers. One was executed in 2011, a second one is still on death row, and the third guy is serving a life sentence and won't be eligible for parole until 2038. (Unlikely he'll be released.)
SO . . . what MORE would additional laws like "hate crimes" laws do? Seems the criminal justice system worked just fine without cluttering it up with what amounts to "thought crimes."
-
It isn't the severity of the punishment that counts. It is how many counts they can convict them on. =)
-
It isn't the severity of the punishment that counts. It is how many counts they can convict them on. =)
Or make them more deader...
-
With 23 years in the system, I am opposed to all of the thought crimes, meaning the "hate" crimes. Seems to me that you should be punishing the criminal conduct, not the motive. The class/category/gender/race of the victim shouldn't matter any more than the class/category/gender/race of the offender.
isn't this totally at odds with tge common law doctrine of mens rea, though? Motivation is typically pretty central to the whole Western concept of justice. We even have different names and different sentences for the same act depending on what the motivation was.
I'm typically against hate crime laws because they jeopardize equality under the law, but not because I don't think it's valid to consider motivation.
-
I think every hate crime law is wrong because it's attacking thoughts. Your motivation for something (that was done with ill intent) shouldn't matter.
HOWEVER, I think that knowingly attacking a police officer or a judge ought to have a higher punishment, because they are the representatives (or should be) of the rule of law.
Attacking them is more than just attacking a person, it is attacking the means of enforcing the law. Especially since (at least with the police) they are being attacked BECAUSE of their position, not for some personal grudge.
So, the results of a higher sentence is correct. The means is wrong and ought to be changed.
-
isn't this totally at odds with tge common law doctrine of mens rea, though? Motivation is typically pretty central to the whole Western concept of justice. We even have different names and different sentences for the same act depending on what the motivation was.
I'm typically against hate crime laws because they jeopardize equality under the law, but not because I don't think it's valid to consider motivation.
In the bolded part, which crimes are you thinking of?
I'm neither a lawyer, nor a scholar of latin, but having seen Legally Blond, I know that "mens rea" means "malicious will." Whatever it means, considering motive doesn't mean that we have to super-punish people who hate "protected classes." I thought, based on my extensive viewing of Matlock and Castle, that motive was a matter of establishing that the person had a reason to commit the crime of which they're accused. Otherwise, it's hard to convince a jury that they were likely to have done it.
Also, are you confusing motive with intent? If I form a plan to go out with my friends and lynch a certain type of person, that's the kind of intent that gets me a first degree murder charge. That's because I intended to commit murder, as opposed to accidentally killing someone, by driving recklessly. "Hate crime" goes one step further, by punishing me according to who I choose to lynch. So a hatred for black people that causes someone to lynch only black people is a hate crime. A hatred for red-haired women that causes a serial killer to murder only red-haired women is not a hate crime. Do you see a problem that dichotomy?
-
I think punishments go from manslaughter, to murder, to first degree murder all based on intent and/or pre-planning versus crime of passion. I think most states have different levels of murder as well below first degree. In Texas, only first degree is eligible for the death penalty. I think manslaughter involves no intent to kill.
Threading the needle between those definitions is getting beyond my amature knowledge of the stuff. Our resident legal eagles might give a better answer.
-
I think every hate crime law is wrong because it's attacking thoughts. Your motivation for something (that was done with ill intent) shouldn't matter.
HOWEVER, I think that knowingly attacking a police officer or a judge ought to have a higher punishment, because they are the representatives (or should be) of the rule of law.
Attacking them is more than just attacking a person, it is attacking the means of enforcing the law. Especially since (at least with the police) they are being attacked BECAUSE of their position, not for some personal grudge.
So, the results of a higher sentence is correct. The means is wrong and ought to be changed.
I heartily disagree. An individual is worth much more than an abstract concept, like law enforcement. From a Christian standpoint, government is ordained by God, but man is made in God's own image. From a non-Christian standpoint, well, I hope non-Christians would arrive at a similar conclusion. If not, then I would question whether they think the community (in the abstract) is more or less valuable than the individual. The answer to that is kind of important.
I think punishments go from manslaughter, to murder, to first degree murder all based on intent and/or pre-planning versus crime of passion. I think most states have different levels of murder as well below first degree. In Texas, only first degree is eligible for the death penalty. I think manslaughter involves no intent to kill.
Threading the needle between those definitions is getting beyond my amature knowledge of the stuff. Our resident legal eagles might give a better answer.
Yes - intent, premeditation; not exactly motive.
-
I heartily disagree. An individual is worth much more than an abstract concept, like law enforcement. From a Christian standpoint, government is ordained by God, but man is made in God's own image. From a non-Christian standpoint, well, I hope non-Christians would arrive at a similar conclusion. If not, then I would question whether they think the community (in the abstract) is more or less valuable than the individual. The answer to that is kind of important.
Yes - intent, premeditation; not exactly motive.
Errr... so a police officer isn't also a person?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk
-
Errr... so a police officer isn't also a person?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk
Of course he's a person. That's why it's already illegal to attack one.
-
I agree with Fistuful here ( :O :O :O :O)
A judge, or politician, or police officer isn't any more special or important to society then any other person. We are all equal. No one should be "more equal" than any other person in the eyes of the law.
-
Of course he's a person. That's why it's already illegal to attack one.
Exactly. IN ADDITION to attacking a person, they are also attacking the means by which we enforce the law. I agree attacking a person is worse than attacking an institution.
But, this is a case of attacking BOTH a person and an institution.
Isn't x + y > x, no matter how small y is?
-
Exactly. IN ADDITION to attacking a person, they are also attacking the means by which we enforce the law. I agree attacking a person is worse than attacking an institution.
But, this is a case of attacking BOTH a person and an institution.
Isn't x + y > x, no matter how small y is?
What Amy said. You could also justify "hate crimes," by structuring them as a punishment for attacking someone, and also attacking a race of people. But why stop here? How about an extra penalty for attacking a mother? And so it's not sexist, fathers too? Clergy? Nuns? What about lawyers and politicians, since an attack on them is an attack on our legal and political processes?
I'd argue for a lighter sentence if one attacks an IRS agent.
-
Interesting how some people here seem to believe certain government employees' lives are more important than their own, or the lives of their families.
Hope they sit down with their children or significant others and say "You're not as important to me as that cop/politician/fireman/whatever, so THEY should have special protections that YOU don't."
Should clarify their relationships a bit.
-
Interesting how some people here seem to believe certain government employees' lives are more important than their own, or the lives of their families.
Hope they sit down with their children or significant others and say "You're not as important to me as that cop/politician/fireman/whatever, so THEY should have special protections that YOU don't."
Should clarify their relationships a bit.
I don't think makattak was saying that at all. I DO think that the Texas law has that effect, though. Unintended consequences.