It should be illegal to attack any emergency responder, but including them under race, sex and origin? That goes way off course and will only incite more bullshit.
Also you have to be the biggest of cunts to attack a fucking firefighter or EMS.
I don't see the problem personally. Don't assault police and it won't affect you.
Do assault police (which you shouldn't) and you'll probably be punished more severely than previously.
[QUOTE=elitehakor;51930525]At least here in Lexington the cops seem pretty chill. I've only had one interaction with the police when i got into a wreck but they were very courteous and professional (though on the police report they said that i was a female :v)
And the statistics help support the fact that Kentucky doesn't really have a cop killer problem, so i think this is very much a useless feel-good measure, at least for the cop part. Thanks matt bevin[/QUOTE]
In Louisville we have great relations with our police. Of course any cop that pulls you over and gives you a ticket is an asshole bla bla bla but all the cops I've talked to are chill and professional, it feels like everyone I know has some family member or friend in the police force so there's a lot of respect for cops. Louisville has a large black population too and I can personally tell you that there's no real tension between the communities.
Do you know how to create tension though? Pass a stupid fucking bill that is literally just for the rednecks in bumfuck nowhere Kentucky who are only going to nod their heads in affirmation and get on with their day. It's just a political ploy. Our state could be an economic powerhouse in the future for a few different factors but holy shit is our local government absolutely retarded, it's basically just luck that our state isn't worse off than it is.
[QUOTE=Bengley;51930730]I don't see the problem personally. Don't assault police and it won't affect you.
Do assault police (which you shouldn't) and you'll probably be punished more severely than previously.[/QUOTE]
If you read the thread you'd see that people already explained the problems with it. .Isak.'s post three above yours is a every good explanation of the issues with making cops a protected class in general and others have pointed out that even before this law assaulting or murdering cops already netted you a far worse punishment than a general civilian to begin with. Plus it's not a hate crime to resist arrest or assault a cop if your reason for doing so isn't specifically because they're a cop. Assaulting or murdering them specifically [I]because[/I] they're a cop would be a discriminatory crime. And of course that's already covered in our laws to begin with. So this law is entirely pointless and inane, serving to do nothing other than rile people up even more than they already were.
[QUOTE=Bengley;51930730]I don't see the problem personally. Don't assault police and it won't affect you.
Do assault police (which you shouldn't) and you'll probably be punished more severely than previously.[/QUOTE]
Is even [i]more[/i] serious punishment really necessary though? It's already particularly illegal to attack a police officer, and the homicide rates for police officers where this is being passed are super low... Someone said below the general rate for the state as a whole earlier?
Doesn't seem like legislation that actually seeks to solve a real problem. Just stupid political pandering.
Hey: don't let the force recon cosplay fool you, cops are civilians. I apologize on behalf of the state for this ass-backwards racist bootlicking horseshit.
[QUOTE=Scarabix;51929937]How the hell did we go from the tentative assertion that black lives are worth something to declaring assault of police officers a hate crime? This screams of trying to sweep racial issues under the rug.
"Blue lives" is not a race and were never jeopardized, and anyone who parrots "blue lives matter" or "all lives matter" is purposely trying to dilute the issue of police brutality & racism. I wish it were just a state senate pipe dream but there are grass roots for bootlicking somehow which is the saddest part of this story.[/QUOTE]
I'm glad to see that you think not all lives matter, and that people who disagree with you are bootlickers.
[QUOTE=FZE;51930799]Hey: don't let the force recon cosplay fool you, cops are civilians.[/QUOTE]
They aren't civilians, a civilian is a person who is not a part of the armed forces or the police.
[QUOTE=Sonador;51930025]Probably not, honestly.
I'll stop posting and just leave this as my final point:
If BLM is legitimate, BlueLM is legitimate. Adding this law is providing equal protections to the police that are presently there for hate crimes against specific individuals.
This is not some backhanded response to BLM directly, no matter how much one wants it to be. It's a response to the rise in hate crime and police murder in the recent political climate in the US. If anything, the name is unfortunate, and I'd agree maybe renaming it is a bright idea.
That's all.[/QUOTE]
Oh come on. You can't seriously think that "Blue Lives Matter" isn't a direct counterattack against Black Lives Matter. Is there a single person in this country who goes on about Blue Lives Mattering that didn't already have a pre-existing negative opinion about BLM?
This is stupid, and dilutes the idea of hate crime.
[QUOTE=Sonador;51929924]He absolutely did, and even if the numbers were different, it does not make murdering police officers okay.
If you are opposing this bill, you are stating that the murder of a police officer is neither especially heinous nor important.[/QUOTE]
"If you don't support this bill, you think murdering cops is okay."
You should be ashamed of yourself, making such a childish and inappropriate accusation. There are plenty of reasons to be opposed to this bill, first and foremost being a concern of its potential for abuse and exploitation. Hate crimes carry harsher punishment, and this potentially gives police the power to stack hate crime charges on damn near [I]any[/I] offense that inconveniences them.
For example: resisting arrest, a crime which already demands almost no proof and is thus highly exploitable, could now theoretically be classed as a hate crime, landing you in jail for years.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;51930958]"If you don't support this bill, you think murdering cops is okay."
You should be ashamed of yourself, making such a childish and inappropriate accusation. There are plenty of reasons to be opposed to this bill, first and foremost being a concern of its potential for abuse and exploitation. Hate crimes carry harsher punishment, and this potentially gives police the power to stack hate crime charges on damn near [I]any[/I] offense that inconveniences them.
For example: resisting arrest, a crime which already demands almost no proof and is thus highly exploitable, could now theoretically be classed as a hate crime, landing you in jail for years.[/QUOTE]
Seriously, the whole point of BLM whether you like it as a movement or not is criticism of police abuses of power. This bill has the power to make police abuses of power worse.
Never understood the point of adding more charges to murdering different types of people.
It's murder, whether you're white, brown, black, or blue. A life is taken maliciously either way and I don't see how making it "worse" to kill one over the other will prevent it or deter it.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;51931293]Never understood the point of adding more charges to murdering different types of people.
It's murder, whether you're white, brown, black, or blue. A life is taken maliciously either way and I don't see how making it "worse" to kill one over the other will prevent it or deter it.[/QUOTE]
Excluding hate crimes murder is still divided into many things. Me fucking up and accidentally killing someone with a car will land me different charges than me stabbing someone to death intentionally. And even maliciously killing with intent, there's still many sub-categories such as capital murder if you stab your mailman, lying-in-wait, etc.. And hell, a HUGE part of the justice system is about trying to take circumstances into account.
So it really isn't out of the ordinary.
I'm not really familiar with the case made for the existence of the "hate crime" category though so I won't really say much for or against it.
[QUOTE=Sonador;51929993]So you'd say implemeting more laws in the vein of what BLM is rallying for would be redundant and a kneejerk reaction as well, of course?[/QUOTE]
Yes, I would. While a strong legal system is the basis for an equal society, duplicating laws just to please the masses is idiotic and short-sighted.
Also could you stop using the BLM acronym because there's now [I]blue[/I] lives matter and [I]black[/I] lives matter and I'm legitimately getting confused as to which one you're talking about.
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;51931314]Excluding hate crimes murder is still divided into many things. Me fucking up and accidentally killing someone with a car will land me different charges than me stabbing someone to death intentionally. And even maliciously killing with intent, there's still many sub-categories such as capital murder if you stab your mailman, lying-in-wait, etc.. And hell, a HUGE part of the justice system is about trying to take circumstances into account.
So it really isn't out of the ordinary.
I'm not really familiar with the case made for the existence of the "hate crime" category though so I won't really say much for or against it.[/QUOTE]
How you kill someone is pretty different compared to why you killed someone. I know the difference between manslaughter and murder 1. Circumstances can change, but I do not see why the motive of murdering a shop owner to get away with a robbery is different from murdering an officer or black man due to their color when the end result between both is still someone's life taken away.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;51931338]How you kill someone is pretty different compared to why you killed someone. I know the difference between manslaughter and murder 1. Circumstances can change, but I do not see why the motive of murdering a shop owner to get away with a robbery is different from murdering an officer or black man due to their color when the end result between both is still someone's life taken away.[/QUOTE]
Not sure how to word this since there's only so much I know about legal shit, but the moral damage of a crime is also taken in account for a sentence.
Which makes sense even from a practical standpoint, because moral damage is just another type of damage to add onto the list, and despite referring to feelings and human behavior, it is still somewhat quantifiable.
Crimes with moral damage that's suspect to reach a whole community or ethnicity because it was specifically targeted at them are obviously going to end up considered differently. It makes sense from an ideological standpoint and it makes sense from a practical standpoint. If the sentence to a crime is meant to accurately represent the gravity of the act and its repercussions, then the motives for a crime should also be scrutinized and the sentence adapted as a result.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;51930949]This is stupid, and dilutes the idea of hate crime.[/QUOTE]
I'm curious, but what do you think the "idea" of a hate crime is?
Hate-crimes are defined (nebulously) as an act of bias-motivated crime against a person. Originally, they only covered Race, Religion and National origin. The [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard_and_James_Byrd_Jr._Hate_Crimes_Prevention_Act"]Shepard Act[/URL] expanded those protections to gender, gender identity, disability and more.
How does expanding it to cover a class of person who has, historically, been a target of [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Panther_Party"]violence[/URL] in particular, [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Hutton"]ambushes,[/URL] motivated solely by that person's identity, somehow dilute or damage the integrity of that type of law?
Note that I am not saying that there is some epidemic of Anti-Police violence against Police in Kentucky (as evidenced by it's low officer mortality numbers), and indeed this is probably a feel good measure, but if you're going to act like Feel-Good measures (whether or not they have a rational basis) are somehow a great evil, then you've got plenty of other legislation that you had ought to be shaking your stick at.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;51931398]Not sure how to word this since there's only so much I know about legal shit, but the moral damage of a crime is also taken in account for a sentence.
Which makes sense even from a practical standpoint, because moral damage is just another type of damage to add onto the list, and despite referring to feelings and human behavior, it is still somewhat quantifiable.
Crimes with moral damage that's suspect to reach a whole community or ethnicity because it was specifically targeted at them are obviously going to end up considered differently. It makes sense from an ideological standpoint and it makes sense from a practical standpoint. If the sentence to a crime is meant to accurately represent the gravity of the act and its repercussions, then the motives for a crime should also be scrutinized and the sentence adapted as a result.[/QUOTE]
Is there evidence that tacking on "hate crime" to the list of charges deter that type of murder in any capacity, or is it to just punish harder on people who have already committed the worse crime possible to commit?
As for moral damage that can be afflicted to the 'community' after the fact, would that not rather be classified as an act of terror instead? (which as far as I know would probably not deter it from being committed any more than calling it a hate crime)
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;51930958][B]"If you don't support this bill, you think murdering cops is okay."[/B]
You should be ashamed of yourself, making such a childish and inappropriate accusation. There are plenty of reasons to be opposed to this bill, first and foremost being a concern of its potential for abuse and exploitation. Hate crimes carry harsher punishment, and this potentially gives police the power to stack hate crime charges on damn near [I]any[/I] offense that inconveniences them.
For example: resisting arrest, a crime which already demands almost no proof and is thus highly exploitable, could now theoretically be classed as a hate crime, landing you in jail for years.[/QUOTE]
I've noticed Sonador does this a lot.
Like, A LOT.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;51931424]Is there evidence that tacking on "hate crime" to the list of charges deter that type of murder in any capacity, or is it to just punish harder on people who have already committed the worse crime possible to commit?
As for moral damage that can be afflicted to the 'community' after the fact, would that not rather be classified as an act of terror instead? (which as far as I know would probably not deter it from being committed any more than calling it a hate crime)[/QUOTE]
It's less about deterrence and more about fair punishment.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;51931328]Yes, I would. While a strong legal system is the basis for an equal society, duplicating laws just to please the masses is idiotic and short-sighted.
Also could you stop using the BLM acronym because there's now [I]blue[/I] lives matter and [I]black[/I] lives matter and I'm legitimately getting confused as to which one you're talking about.[/QUOTE]
We're actually talking about Banana Lives Matter
Lol, how can they determine if it's a 'police-motivated' attack and not just a run of the mill, criminal trying to escape justice attack?
The fuck is this law?
[QUOTE=HappyCompy;51931522]Lol, how can they determine if it's a 'police-motivated' attack and not just a run of the mill, criminal trying to escape justice attack?
The fuck is this law?[/QUOTE]
Pretty sure the attack down in Dallas last year is pretty clear.
[editline]8th March 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;51931460]It's less about deterrence and more about fair punishment.[/QUOTE]
I guess in that case we simply disagree over fair punishment.
"Blue Lives Matter" is just as inane as the whole "Mens Rights Activism" thing. Because while yes, these do have legitimate concerns with their treatment and conditions within society, the solutions to their problems lie within BLM and feminism, respectively. If you want to alleviate rising tensions between civilians and the police, then fix the problems that BLM is asking you to instead of turning your nose in their faces and making the problem worse. BLM [I]should[/I] be a movement that helps both black men [B]and[/B] the police. Just like how improving gender relations should benefit men as well.
Have BLM and feminist movements had their issues? Yes, but I figure that you're better off working with the good parts of both (which are not insignificant) and looking at working with their more reasonable demands before you do anything rash and reactionary like this.
[QUOTE=HappyCompy;51931522]Lol, how can they determine if it's a 'police-motivated' attack and not just a run of the mill, criminal trying to escape justice attack?
The fuck is this law?[/QUOTE]
How can they determine any motive for any crime? It's called police work funnily enough
[QUOTE=Apache249;51931604]How can they determine any motive for any crime? It's called police work funnily enough[/QUOTE]
Nice! Let's just appeal to authority and dismiss a legitimate question!
Police investigations aren't always reliable if the last year has taught us anything.
[QUOTE=HappyCompy;51931619]Nice! Let's just appeal to authority and dismiss a legitimate question![/QUOTE]
That's literally the answer to the question. Look at the Dallas attack, the NYPD officers ambushed in their squad car, Dorner. The motivation isn't any harder to determine than any other hate crime. But no, let's just call fallacy and dismiss a legitimate answer!
[editline]8th March 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Pascall;51931639]Police investigations aren't always reliable if the last year has taught us anything.[/QUOTE]
This has always been the case, and bias is something that law enforcement will have to work on for a long time
[editline]8th March 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Duck M.;51931576]"Blue Lives Matter" is just as inane as the whole "Mens Rights Activism" thing. Because while yes, these do have legitimate concerns with their treatment and conditions within society, the solutions to their problems lie within BLM and feminism, respectively. If you want to alleviate rising tensions between civilians and the police, then fix the problems that BLM is asking you to instead of turning your nose in their faces and making the problem worse. BLM [I]should[/I] be a movement that helps both black men [B]and[/B] the police. Just like how improving gender relations should benefit men as well.
Have BLM and feminist movements had their issues? Yes, but I figure that you're better off working with the good parts of both (which are not insignificant) and looking at working with their more reasonable demands before you do anything rash and reactionary like this.[/QUOTE]
Blue lives matter is support for law enforcement. Nothing more, nothing less.
[QUOTE=Apache249;51931700]
Blue lives matter is support for law enforcement. Nothing more, nothing less.[/QUOTE]
That's not true and you know it. It's in the name -- it's a direct response to "Black Lives Matter". It's the same thing as "all lives matter". It's true, but it trivializes and silences the original movement. You cannot be a supporter of both.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
