Musician Forum - Band Discussion Board - BandMix

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/excess ... ade-stand/

Watch the video, read the article. What do you think?

Interesting that you should post that GMB. Coming from you it seems out of place.

From my POV, the police are becoming a tool to interdict on laws that shouldn't exist. It can become far worse if the military is asked to interdict.

Is this the beginning of one man or small oligarchy over the many. The end of tolerance and freedom. Anarchy because of the law. Worse, the use of the law as a means to control people against their free will, that goes against all fundamental of principles of America.

Very interesting post.

Jook - Not sure what to think yet, didn't know much about it until I read the article you posted. Heard about it, but not much.

From the sound of this article, it's not intended to increase police power, but to allow the courts more leeway in sentencing. I may be wrong. To quote from the article -

If a defendant is convicted of a hate crime, additional penalties are tacked on to the sentence; in Louisiana, that could mean up to five more years in prison with hard labor and a $5,000 fine for felonies such as murder, assault and battery, rape, etc.

And then

Louisiana becomes the first state to add one's chosen vocation to that list, something that has rankled opponents

Then the comment later from the writer of the bill,

Now, this (new law) protects police and first responders under the hate crime law," Harris said, adding that he considers legislative action necessary because the crime is "done strictly out of hate for the officer and his uniform."

Sounds like it's just adding police officers to the list of organizations already covered in existing hate crime laws. What you said is true, attacks and shootings of police already bring heftier penalties, maybe this was not strictly necessary, but adding it to the hate crime lists may in turn allow for even stricter penalties.

I'm just starting to check into it, at best I can only offer an ambiguous opinion, but at first glance, it looks like it just adds attacks on police officers to the list of hate crimes, which I think is correct, since all of the rash of recent police killings do fit into the general description of a hate crime. I don't think it will do anything to hinder or bolster their ability to do their job. Form what I read here, it has almost nothing to do with police authority, just an attempt to add it to the list of hate crimes and maybe get stiffer penalties.

Again, I may be wrong...

a crime is a crime is a crime is a crime.


Adding to it because of what someone is "thinking" or has an emotional attachment is just plain stupid.

Anything labeled as a "hate crime" is no better or worse than anything labeled as a "crime". If we would just prosecute criminals, it wouldn't matter.

But as it is, someone who kills your mother out of mean spite is treated better than someone who slaps a queer on the corner.


.

jookeyman wrote:Hate crime laws were strictly written to protect civil rights.

.....of SOME people.


The fact is that they place more value on the "feelings" of some groups over others, rather than prosecuting all crimes equally.

Look, I hope anyone who kills a cop is sent up the river for life...but why is a cop's life more valuable than someone's mom or brother? Why is killing a black person because you're a racist worse than killing a white person because you're a violent criminal? Why is beating up a gay person worse than assaulting anyone else?

And who decides which groups are a protected class? It implies that crimes against other people aren't as serious or of much lesser importance.

That kind of unequal justice is just wrong.


.

Had to click the link just to find out exactly what an "ille" is.

That crap has happened so many times elsewhere. You can Google the topic and it shows up all over the place.

Perhaps little kids should only sell "pink Lemonade" and then hire a lawyer to declare that it is a hate crime against women if they try to shut them down

Or sell lemonade in multi colored Dixie Cups proclaiming that they are targeting their sales in order to violate their support LGBT rights groups. And then they should sic the militant Gaystopo on them.

Naturally the cops could always say they shot and killed them all in self defense when they noticed a lemonade spill on the table in the shape of a gun.

If they really are serious about stopping the sales of lemonade by children they should up the criminal penalty to 5 years hard labor.

Meanwhile, the Mexican drug lords need more fast and furious guns. Most of the previous weapons are worn out due to being improperly maintained.

Yeah it is a pathetically sad as$ world.

jookeyman wrote:The enforcement of these laws is a different subject altogether.
'Crime is crime' is a very simplistic approach to the problem.

No, it is a simple answer to the problem of murder and justice

Crime is broken down and justice is enforced according to criminal motive.

Motive shouldn't matter if death is the result.

If I kill a guy in the heat of the moment (he's in the sack w/ my wife) I get manslaughter. [/quote}
If I kill a guy just for the hell of it (I'm a psychopathic killer) I get a stiffer sentence.
If I kill a guy just because his skin color is different than mine, I'm one sick puppy and I'm a threat to ALL people with the same skin color. Should I get off w/ manslaughter??
:

Are any of them more dead than the others? If you have killed an innocent person for any reason, you need to burn.

Manslaughter should only be allowed if it was not an intentional killing. Ya know, a fair fight where your opponent dies but you weren't actually planning a murder.

In the case of adultery that is not an innocent person, but you still don't have the right to murder someone. I could see allowing for special consideration at sentencing, but it's not comparable to killing an innocent person for any reason or motive.