three republicans voted against making lynching a hate crime

[fabulouslyghetto]

So you're saying that the cops will make more of an effort to enforce the new law than they ever did with the old ones?

cops don't enforce laws they respond once laws have been broken. enforcing DV laws wouldn't look like arresting a man after he's lumped up his girlfriend's face, it would be community engagement with women and families, connecting battered women to resources they need. enforcing DUI laws isn't arresting somebody after they've killed a woman and her dog, it's DUI checkpoints at bars and highways so they never make it that far, and enforcing lynching laws would, in an alternate universe where the police culture in america isn't deeply racist, look like an aggressive crackdown on neo nazis and racism, i used to think we were 100 years away from that happening but then people were like "wait let's hear what the nazis and racists have to say" so i guess it's gonna take longer. america was quicker to recognize and defend the humanity of the klan than they were to recognize my people as human.

ergo why we have to add extra padding to laws written by men who never intended for someone like me to be a citizen in the first place. and, shocker, the first wave of amendments, written exclusively by white men, to said racist foundation for our laws did little if anything to fix the problems of the original law. it's never really been a crime for a white person to attack a person of color like this, otherwise there'd be a lot more white octogenarians in prison. this is why they don't want CRT in the classroom nobody wants to talk about what wypipo were up to in the 20th century specifically how they treated black people. i guess if i committed gross crimes against humanity and my family heritage was "hey let's go lynch an n-word and have a picnic it'll be great" i wouldn't wanna talk about it either.

 

[gsdx]

incitement is not a "hate" crime in the U.S

The link to the government website I posted explains our hate crime laws: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-319.html

We also have Hate Speech laws, which many (most?) Americans consider to be censorship. It isn't. We don't stop people from spouting hate speech. We just make them responsible for it when they do, and that applies to ALL Canadians, including government officials at every level.

 

[DevilsFelch]

I assume that lynching is already illegal. Can someone explain to this non-American what difference making it specifically a federal hate crime would make. Murder is murder surely.

Yup, that's the point not made by the poster since it is inconvenient to him.

Hate crimes just add a spurious layer of virtue signalling to things that can be prosecuted easily under existing laws.

 

[DevilsFelch]

This is all persnickety, nit-picky stuff, unfortunately our laws function largely by parsing nomenclature.

Which all sounds fine and dandy as an objection, until you consider what legal systems that DON'T operate that way are like !!!

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

Yup, that's the point not made by the poster since it is inconvenient to him.

Hate crimes just add a spurious layer of virtue signalling to things that can be prosecuted easily under existing laws.

Or maybe denying the need for hate crime laws is a way for wypipo to restore the white equilibrium by patting themselves on the back for "not being racist anymore" even if literal racism is on the evening news every fucking night. organizations and talking headspreaching racism up to and including eugenics and genocide and other wypipo not seeing anything wrong with it. unelss of course the racism is coming from obama's black pastor.

a more historically factual telling of our court system is how many innocent black men have gone to prison for crimes they didn't commit while domestic terrorists, the Klan, neo nazis all the way back to slaveowners were 100% exonerated for disturbing and unspeakable acts against people of color. crimes that would put a normal person in prison for10 consecutive lifetimes. Not as one-off events the way we think of racist incidents today, but it was ordinary every day life. harassment. lynching. castration. vandalism. all with a smile and an agenda.

we have lynch crimes and hate crimes because...., wypipo lynch and hate us. i know this strays too far away from the strories wypipo tell about themselves being noble honorable righteous brave intelligent hard-working lords of the universe but, again, historical accuracy..

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

Which all sounds fine and dandy as an objection, until you consider what legal systems that DON'T operate that way are like !!!

Ours doesn't work. We don't have a legal system. White guys get probation for rape while lowlevel nonviolent black "criminals" go to prison. we have a system of powerful white men who shield each other from accountability, who will show more leniency to a Klansman than a black father with no record. i just posted at a judge about screaming at an elderly cancer patient and threatening jail because his treatments left him too weak to take care of the weeds on the side of his house. give you 3 guesses what color he is.

60% of actual judges polled agreed that there's racial bias in the court system. frankly wypipo have not earned our trust enough that their laws are sufficient to keep us safe. because they aren't and never have been. can anybody name a time in america where black people were relatively safe? anybody?

 

[TX-Beau]

Yup, that's the point not made by the poster since it is inconvenient to him.

Hate crimes just add a spurious layer of virtue signalling to things that can be prosecuted easily under existing laws.

Being willfully blind just makes people think they nailed the target. Do you have anything to say that addresses anything at all?

Which all sounds fine and dandy as an objection, until you consider what legal systems that DON'T operate that way are like !!!

Which "legal systems" DON'T operate that way?

 

[TX-Beau]

Ours doesn't work. We don't have a legal system. White guys get probation for rape while lowlevel nonviolent black "criminals" go to prison. we have a system of powerful white men who shield each other from accountability, who will show more leniency to a Klansman than a black father with no record. i just posted at a judge about screaming at an elderly cancer patient and threatening jail because his treatments left him too weak to take care of the weeds on the side of his house. give you 3 guesses what color he is.

60% of actual judges polled agreed that there's racial bias in the court system. frankly wypipo have not earned our trust enough that their laws are sufficient to keep us safe. because they aren't and never have been. can anybody name a time in america where black people were relatively safe? anybody?

The system isn't broken, that's why all the White whining and screed, silly propositions and empty vitriol with no honest attempts to understand and willful ignorance. The entire edifice of policing and law in the U.S. is pretty good at protecting the interests of the people who control it. The greatest crime of the haters is not being a sheet wearing bigot, the greatest crime is ignoring what happens to everyone else while you blithely justify away - because it's inconvenient and you can't be bothered to care.

 

[TX-Beau]

The question you never hear answered is why their panties get all twisted about Hate Crime Laws in the first place. If there is no need for them, why give a fuck about something that will never be used? The discomfort comes from the suspicion that somehow Hate Crime Laws are going to expose all those dirty sheets and pillowcases.

 

[gsdx]

The discomfort comes from the suspicion that somehow Hate Crime Laws are going to expose all those dirty sheets and pillowcases.

They tend to expose themselves either with or without or even in spite of Hate Crime Laws. The laws just point great big neon arrows at them for flying their dirty underwear on the flagpole.

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

The question you never hear answered is why their panties get all twisted about Hate Crime Laws in the first place. If there is no need for them, why give a fuck about something that will never be used? The discomfort comes from the suspicion that somehow Hate Crime Laws are going to expose all those dirty sheets and pillowcases.

checkmate. these people expose themselves, all you gotta do is ask for their opinion on rap music or welfare or the latest police shooting of an unarmed black man.

 

[KaraBulut]

I assume that lynching is already illegal. Can someone explain to this non-American what difference making it specifically a federal hate crime would make. Murder is murder surely.

In this discussion, I don't see where your question was clearly answered?

Lynching by definition is "extrajudicial murder". It's not a typical murder because it often involves a group of people who execute an accused criminal (assumed innocent until convicted) before they appear before the court system. Lynching is a perversion of the justice system and a flouting of the American system which is supposed to give everyone a fair trial.

This is different than a "hate crime" which is a crime perpetrated against someone not accused of a crime.

The reason it is getting muddled with "hate crime" in the discussion is that these extra-judicial murders changed in character after the US Civil War. In the 1870 census, the US population was about 12.5% black (or "negro" in census category). Of the 5,000 or so people lynched after the Civil Way, about 70% of the victims were black.

There's a group of collectors in the U.S. who collected postcards of public lynchings in the US. Often, the people who attended the lynching would buy the postcards and mail them to friends and relatives to document that they witnessed the murder.

Here's a few examples:

These lynchings were often perpetrated and witnessed by large crowds of people.

Consider for a moment that these people who were present at the lynching- some of who were participants in lynching the person who was murdered- aren't hiding their faces in the photographs. They have no fear of prosecution. No local elected official is going to prosecute the crowd of citizens that they need to vote for them. That's why the Federal lynching law was needed.

Oh- and one other American historical detail- often the people doing the lynching were in law enforcement. For example, the La Matanza murders along the southern US border involved members of the Texas Rangers.

At this point, it is more symbolic because for 100 years, the legislation had been tied up in Congress by Senators from Southern US States who didn't want it to pass... because they didn't want to piss off the people they needed to vote for them.

 

[unloadonme]

Thanks KaraBulut, that was very interesting. Unfortunately, the video is not available here.

Those photographs are disturbing. I've seen similar ones before, but had always thought lynching was a thing of the past. In this thread the murder of Ahmaud Arbery has been used as a purported example of a modern lynching, but that was a racially motivated murder for which all three perpetrators received life sentences under the existing law. You say that the new legislation is now more symbolic than anything and that really has been my point too.

 

[KaraBulut]

Thanks KaraBulut, that was very interesting. Unfortunately, the video is not available here.

Those photographs are disturbing. I've seen similar ones before, but had always thought lynching was a thing of the past. In this thread the murder of Ahmaud Arbery has been used as a purported example of a modern lynching, but that was a racially motivated murder for which all three perpetrators received life sentences under the existing law. You say that the new legislation is now more symbolic than anything and that really has been my point too.

A couple of things to think about:

• After the Arbery shooting- which you are correct- was an extrajudicial execution, the local prosecutor, Jackie Johnson, would not press charges against the three men. She's now charged with obstruction of justice. If not for the phone video that was leaked to the press, Johnson's refusal to prosecute the men (one of whom used to work for her) would have allowed them to get away with the murder.
• The three men were charged at both the State and Federal level. The Federal charges were under the "hate crime" and kidnapping statutes which are not really appropriate in this instance. If you read the DOJ's statement, it says that the 3 men interfered with Arbery's right to use the street. Right to use the street? Arbery was murdered by men who considered themselves the judge and jury, instead of allowing the police to handle the matter. If there were a Federal lynching statute, perhaps that might have been used if the local prosecutors had refused to charge the men?

I do feel like the Federal law- a version of which was originally introduced in Congress over 100 years ago- is largely symbolic. But it does give Federal law enforcement another tool in their toolbox to use in these cases were there's a crime that isn't prosecuted by local officials. It might also be of use on Indian Reservations where the Feds are in charge of prosecuting crimes if a non-Indian person is involved?

 

[unloadonme]

Thanks again KaraBulut. I was already aware that the prosecution in the Arbery case had been delayed in the way you've described. That has more to do with poor enforcement of the existing law than the need for a new one. That said, if the federal legislation takes decision making out of the hands of corrupt or incompetent local prosecutors, then I guess it isn't entirely symbolic.

 

[TX-Beau]

Thanks again KaraBulut. I was already aware that the prosecution in the Arbery case had been delayed in the way you've described. That has more to do with poor enforcement of the existing law than the need for a new one. That said, if the federal legislation takes decision making out of the hands of corrupt or incompetent local prosecutors, then I guess it isn't entirely symbolic.

It has to do with racism in the system, you seem to be belaboring the idea that lack of enforcement is some kind of inefficiency - once again it's DELIBERATE! The DA is on trial because she told the Cops to lie and destroy evidence - that's not a "delay." the intent was for there to be no trial at all.

You were informed way upthread that Hate Crime laws give the FED the power to supersede a jurisdiction repeatedly, which you then ignored,

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

Thanks again KaraBulut. I was already aware that the prosecution in the Arbery case had been delayed in the way you've described. That has more to do with poor enforcement of the existing law than the need for a new one. That said, if the federal legislation takes decision making out of the hands of corrupt or incompetent local prosecutors, then I guess it isn't entirely symbolic.

It wasn't delayed, it was never going to happen. The prosecutor was actively trying to cover up the murder. By a once-in-a-life-time stars-aligned probably-won't-happen-again-soon chance there were tangible consequences for racism in the judicial system. She almost got away with it. How many HAVE gotten away with it? Are we keeping count? Why not? The followup question is because we both know the answer to the previous one.

This may sound strange, but knowing how many racists there are in the judicial system doesn't exactly inspire hope in african americans that the laws, which again were written exclusively by slaveowners and lynch picnic attendees, will be applied fairly. even if they are what's a fair application of laws from men who would see me as a subintelligent primate created by god to worship and serve white people? to the objective mind it sounds like a game where black people literally cannot win. trust in justice for people who enthusiastically deny us at every conceivable opportunity?

this only further highlights the hypocrisy of the WhAt AbOuT bLaCk On BlAcK vIoLeNcE crowd? they try to direct our emotions, when a black person kills another black person we're supposed to be up in arms angry protesting and performing surgery on our culture to "fix the problem," cuz suddenly they care about black murder victims, but racist violence has been happening a lot longer and is still happening but there's no need to ask questions or look at numbers just "trust the system."

sometimes the stench, the foul odors of racial resentment in this country are so powerful it gives me vitaligo. that would be an interesting study. psychological physiological and biological affects of racism, the impact of bigotry on black health. i'm sure somebody somewhere is keeping track cuz we mean so much to this country.

 

[KaraBulut]

Thanks again KaraBulut. I was already aware that the prosecution in the Arbery case had been delayed in the way you've described. That has more to do with poor enforcement of the existing law than the need for a new one. That said, if the federal legislation takes decision making out of the hands of corrupt or incompetent local prosecutors, then I guess it isn't entirely symbolic.

I'm surprised how much of these stories make it to overseas news outlets.

One of the problems with the republic-democratic system is that enforcement by local jurisdictions are inconsistent and there are places like military bases and Indian reservations where there has to be a Federal law in order for a prosecution to occur.

If you didn't read the linked article about criminal justice on Indian Reservations, read it. It's one of the gaps in the US system that most Americans are unaware of. On our Indian Reservations, the local law enforcement can only arrest tribal members. So, if a non-Indian commits a crime on the reservation, they often get away with it- either because it's not reported to the Federal government, or because the agency in charge is hours away by car or because there isn't a Federal law to prosecute the person under. This was the case with the Osage Murders (which is what led to the creation of our current FBI) " and sections of the The Violence Against Women Act" that were designed to prosecute white men who beat or rape women on Indian land.

It wasn't delayed, it was never going to happen. The prosecutor was actively trying to cover up the murder. By a once-in-a-life-time stars-aligned probably-won't-happen-again-soon chance there were tangible consequences for racism in the judicial system. She almost got away with it. How many HAVE gotten away with it? Are we keeping count? Why not? The followup question is because we both know the answer to the previous one.

Honestly, I can see both sides of the story. The prosecutor had three guys claiming that another guy was robbing the neighborhood and that he attacked them and they were "standing their ground". No witnesses- the only other witness was dead.

Absent that phone video and absent Arbery's family's persistence, the guys would likely have gotten away with it. If the local prosecutor refuses to take the case to a grand jury, then who else is there that is going to fend for the rights of the victim? It's another one of the faults of the US system- District Attorneys are elected and won't make unpopular decisions.

Once that video surfaced, the DA should have taken the case to a grand jury. Because she didn't- she got fired, she's under indictment and the three vigilantes are now convicted murderers. In the end the system worked but most of us were surprised when it did.

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

^That last sentence. there's the reality of white america vs black america in the court system.

 

[TX-Beau]

I don't see both sides of this. The absolutely best interpretation of it is that she didn't know it was a lynching, and then crapped her panties when proof turned up, but even if that's the case (don't buy it) she STILL cared far more about herself than the fact that there was a murdered Black man in the morgue who who's killers were going to walk.