Rationalization

[unixronin]

Q:  What do you do when you and two of your buddies, in a drunken haze, beat another acquaintance to death over a period of 24 hours or so, wrap his naked body in a tarpaulin and hide it in his garage, then get turned in to the police ten days later by a third friend to whom you boasted of the murder (and to whom you emailed camera-phone photos, at work, during the process)?

A:  If you live in Crotherton, Indiana, you claim that he was gay¹, and that it's therefore OK because you were afraid Teh Gay would get on you.

[1]  He wasn't.

Comments

[unix-jedi.livejournal.com]

A very well written piece.

My problem with "hate crimes" as a form of legislation and especially sentence enhancement is that in practice, what you said is totally ignored in favor of the publicity of the crime, and the "protected status" of the victims.

As demonstrated by a certain response on this thread.

State of mind is important in crime.

Very true. In practice, the concept of "hate crime" becomes a checklist of what "group" the (alleged) perpetrator is judged to be in versus the group of the victim, and how politically correct the crime, perp, and victim are, rather than what the actual crime is.

Crime has always been a marriage of the two.

Very true. So then why is a "hate crime" different?

[dirtynumbangel.livejournal.com]

Yeah, right, people who have been historically victimized--and who still are--deserve no extra protection. You're a fucking moron. Privilege must be very nice for you.

[unix-jedi.livejournal.com]

Right. (http://www.talkingwav.com/cartoon/bugs_22.wav)

[dirtynumbangel.livejournal.com]

Oh, how cute.

If you're not privileged, then say so. But everything you're saying is what continually gets spouted out of the mouths of those who are privileged. Again.. looks like a duck? Check. Quacks like a duck? Check.

Probably not a fucking goose.

[unix-jedi.livejournal.com]

If you're not privileged, then say so.

Because that makes my stance, my voice, my experience, my ethos greater?

Because if I'm "not privileged", I'm worth listening to? But if I am, I'm not?

I thought I was "twisting your words" to point out that you presumed to label me (and others)?

Now you ask me to label myself so you can evaluate my arguments?

No, I'll stand my arguments as arguments. The labels that apply to me don't matter.

To wit: This case has nothing to do with "hate crime".

Your insistence that it does runs totally counter and opposed to your declaration of what hate crimes are.

You get angry at me, when you don't agree with yourself, and I point this out.

You don't know me, much less "very well".

So you have to project reasons to dismiss me, because your arguments are all based upon what "class" you belong to, and who's deemed to be allowed to have a relevant viewpoint.

Well, that kind of is my point about "Hate Crime Legislation", after all. I don't, err, really, need to argue with you, as you're... making my point for me.

[dirtynumbangel.livejournal.com]

No, you blithering idiot, you twisted my words with your bullshit Orwell quote. Do try and keep up.

And yes, this is a hate crime. As soon as those psychopaths claimed 'gay panic' as a defence, it became one.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

So if I commit murder, then claim that mind rays from Mars made me do it and that's why my hat is lined with tinfoil but the government secretly sabotaged my tinfoil, it suddenly becomes a military threat to Earth?


There is zero evidence in this case thus far that the victim was gay, as his murderers claim. They picked "gay panic" as a defense because it was the only thing they could think of that they thought likely to keep them out of jail. It's not a hate crime. It's an excuse. Nothing more. It's on the level of "The dog ate my homework." Only nastier.