NATION

PASSWORD

Louisiana expands hate crime legislation to first responders

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)
User avatar
Aethrys
Minister
 
Posts: 2714
Founded: Apr 14, 2011
Ex-Nation

Louisiana expands hate crime legislation to first responders

Postby Aethrys » Fri May 27, 2016 6:52 am

Louisiana's governor has signed a bill which will cause attacks targeting first responders to be considered hate crimes. The bill was written in response to recent targeted slayings of police officers, but will also protect firefighters and EMS personnel as part of it's provisions. Proponents of the bill say that adding this category to existing hate crime statutes makes sense, because they currently face threats to their lives out of hatred of the uniform they wear. The spokesman for blue lives matter, applauded the passage of the bill, stating that he considered police officers to be a minority group. Opponents of the bill argue that protecting first responders cheapens existing hate crime law, stating that adding a new category of people to be protected based on their job weakens protections for existing minority categories, adding that one's profession "Is not a personal characteristic, and is not immutable."

IMO this seems like a reasonable move. The intention of hate crime legislation is to allow prosecutors to seek extra punishments for crimes motivated by hatred, and that would seem to apply in this instance. The argument that a job isn't a fixed part of someone doesn't hold up particularly well for me, as attacks on people due to religious bigotry are currently considered hate crimes, and one could easily make the same argument that those people could simply choose to convert to a different religion. I would not oppose seeing similar legislation expanded to more states.

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/26/us/louisi ... index.html
"Concentration of power in a political machine is bad; and an Established Church is only a political machine; it was invented for that; it is nursed, cradled, preserved for that; it is an enemy to human liberty, and does no good which it could not better do in a split-up and scattered condition." - Mark Twain

User avatar
Ranko Kanzaki
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 129
Founded: Mar 31, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby Ranko Kanzaki » Fri May 27, 2016 6:57 am

I can't quite pin down why, but I don't feel like this is an appropriate use of the "hate crime" label...

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that first responders are never targeted because they're first responders, but I feel like it's different somehow.
さあ、一緒に狂いましょう。
Ardoki wrote:Hitler was basically a libertarian, he supported the libertarian ideology of social Darwinism.

User avatar
MERIZoC
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 23694
Founded: Dec 05, 2013
Left-wing Utopia

Postby MERIZoC » Fri May 27, 2016 7:03 am

This is idiotic. Police are already protected in the sense that there are already increased punishments for people who kill police officers. The purpose of hate crime laws is to protect people from crimes targeting them for things they cannot change, or should not change, not occupation. This makes the point of hate crime legislation pointless. Crimes against police are already handled very seriously by the authorities, for obvious reasons. The same cannot be said for crimes against transgender people or minorities. Furthermore, one would be hard pressed to prove that a large number of killings of cops are driven by a hatred for them in the first place. So what's the real purpose of this legislation?

User avatar
Ganonsyoni
Diplomat
 
Posts: 540
Founded: May 01, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby Ganonsyoni » Fri May 27, 2016 7:05 am

That isn't a hate crime.
New and Improved version of "The Carlisle"
MtF transperson, goes by she/her/hers
Call me Carly

“That rifle on the wall of the labourer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.” - Orwell

"I'm a god damn Sage"

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10904
Founded: May 20, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby The Romulan Republic » Fri May 27, 2016 7:05 am

Merizoc wrote:This is idiotic. Police are already protected in the sense that there are already increased punishments for people who kill police officers. The purpose of hate crime laws is to protect people from crimes targeting them for things they cannot change, or should not change, not occupation. This makes the point of hate crime legislation pointless. Crimes against police are already handled very seriously by the authorities, for obvious reasons. The same cannot be said for crimes against transgender people or minorities. Furthermore, one would be hard pressed to prove that a large number of killings of cops are driven by a hatred for them in the first place. So what's the real purpose of this legislation?


To undermine civil rights legislation and minority rights and score points with Right wing voters who hate Black Lives Matter (or just hate Black people)?

Seriously, its a red state. What do people expect?
"Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes" When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics." When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty -- to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy." - President Abraham Lincoln.

User avatar
MERIZoC
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 23694
Founded: Dec 05, 2013
Left-wing Utopia

Postby MERIZoC » Fri May 27, 2016 7:10 am

The Romulan Republic wrote:
Merizoc wrote:This is idiotic. Police are already protected in the sense that there are already increased punishments for people who kill police officers. The purpose of hate crime laws is to protect people from crimes targeting them for things they cannot change, or should not change, not occupation. This makes the point of hate crime legislation pointless. Crimes against police are already handled very seriously by the authorities, for obvious reasons. The same cannot be said for crimes against transgender people or minorities. Furthermore, one would be hard pressed to prove that a large number of killings of cops are driven by a hatred for them in the first place. So what's the real purpose of this legislation?


To undermine civil rights legislation and minority rights and score points with Right wing voters who hate Black Lives Matter (or just hate Black people)?

Seriously, its a red state. What do people expect?

Well yeah, I was asking rhetorically. :p

It is red, though the governor is a Democrat. He does however, have familial relations with police officers, interestingly enough.

User avatar
Great Kauthar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1742
Founded: May 01, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby Great Kauthar » Fri May 27, 2016 7:11 am

The Romulan Republic wrote:
Merizoc wrote:This is idiotic. Police are already protected in the sense that there are already increased punishments for people who kill police officers. The purpose of hate crime laws is to protect people from crimes targeting them for things they cannot change, or should not change, not occupation. This makes the point of hate crime legislation pointless. Crimes against police are already handled very seriously by the authorities, for obvious reasons. The same cannot be said for crimes against transgender people or minorities. Furthermore, one would be hard pressed to prove that a large number of killings of cops are driven by a hatred for them in the first place. So what's the real purpose of this legislation?


To undermine civil rights legislation and minority rights and score points with Right wing voters who hate Black Lives Matter (or just hate Black people)?

Seriously, its a red state. What do people expect?

BLM are terrorists
"Let the thief no longer steal, but rather let him labor, doing honest work with his own hands, so that he may have something to share with anyone in need." - Ephesians 4:28 (ESV)
Christian Social Democrat
I am: "A monument to [the RWDT's] collective sins."

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10904
Founded: May 20, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby The Romulan Republic » Fri May 27, 2016 7:14 am

Merizoc wrote:
The Romulan Republic wrote:
To undermine civil rights legislation and minority rights and score points with Right wing voters who hate Black Lives Matter (or just hate Black people)?

Seriously, its a red state. What do people expect?

Well yeah, I was asking rhetorically. :p

It is red, though the governor is a Democrat. He does however, have familial relations with police officers, interestingly enough.


Well, a Democratic governor in a red state will have to suck up to Right wing voters to keep their job.

Great Kauthar wrote:
The Romulan Republic wrote:
To undermine civil rights legislation and minority rights and score points with Right wing voters who hate Black Lives Matter (or just hate Black people)?

Seriously, its a red state. What do people expect?

BLM are terrorists


Their may be some violence by some members, but that does not equate to the entire group being terrorists. This seems like the kind of attempt to criminalize dissent that typifies authoritarian regimes.
"Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes" When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics." When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty -- to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy." - President Abraham Lincoln.

User avatar
Alvecia
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 20360
Founded: Aug 17, 2015
Democratic Socialists

Postby Alvecia » Fri May 27, 2016 7:18 am

I'm not sure this should be classified as a hate crime. Perhaps it would've been better to set up a seperate category for first responders with similar punishment.

User avatar
MERIZoC
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 23694
Founded: Dec 05, 2013
Left-wing Utopia

Postby MERIZoC » Fri May 27, 2016 7:19 am

Great Kauthar wrote:
The Romulan Republic wrote:
To undermine civil rights legislation and minority rights and score points with Right wing voters who hate Black Lives Matter (or just hate Black people)?

Seriously, its a red state. What do people expect?

BLM are terrorists

lel

User avatar
MERIZoC
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 23694
Founded: Dec 05, 2013
Left-wing Utopia

Postby MERIZoC » Fri May 27, 2016 7:20 am

Alvecia wrote:I'm not sure this should be classified as a hate crime. Perhaps it would've been better to set up a seperate category for first responders with similar punishment.

So you mean


what already exists?

User avatar
Alvecia
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 20360
Founded: Aug 17, 2015
Democratic Socialists

Postby Alvecia » Fri May 27, 2016 7:31 am

Merizoc wrote:
Alvecia wrote:I'm not sure this should be classified as a hate crime. Perhaps it would've been better to set up a seperate category for first responders with similar punishment.

So you mean


what already exists?

Sure I guess. I didn't actually consider that attacking first responder already carries a heavier penalty, but it makes sense
Last edited by Alvecia on Fri May 27, 2016 7:31 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Aethrys
Minister
 
Posts: 2714
Founded: Apr 14, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Aethrys » Fri May 27, 2016 7:38 am

Merizoc wrote:This is idiotic. Police are already protected in the sense that there are already increased punishments for people who kill police officers. The purpose of hate crime laws is to protect people from crimes targeting them for things they cannot change, or should not change, not occupation. This makes the point of hate crime legislation pointless. Crimes against police are already handled very seriously by the authorities, for obvious reasons. The same cannot be said for crimes against transgender people or minorities. Furthermore, one would be hard pressed to prove that a large number of killings of cops are driven by a hatred for them in the first place. So what's the real purpose of this legislation?


Should attacks on people because of their religion be considered hate crimes? People can and have been known to change their religious beliefs.
"Concentration of power in a political machine is bad; and an Established Church is only a political machine; it was invented for that; it is nursed, cradled, preserved for that; it is an enemy to human liberty, and does no good which it could not better do in a split-up and scattered condition." - Mark Twain

User avatar
MERIZoC
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 23694
Founded: Dec 05, 2013
Left-wing Utopia

Postby MERIZoC » Fri May 27, 2016 7:41 am

Aethrys wrote:
Merizoc wrote:This is idiotic. Police are already protected in the sense that there are already increased punishments for people who kill police officers. The purpose of hate crime laws is to protect people from crimes targeting them for things they cannot change, or should not change, not occupation. This makes the point of hate crime legislation pointless. Crimes against police are already handled very seriously by the authorities, for obvious reasons. The same cannot be said for crimes against transgender people or minorities. Furthermore, one would be hard pressed to prove that a large number of killings of cops are driven by a hatred for them in the first place. So what's the real purpose of this legislation?


Should attacks on people because of their religion be considered hate crimes? People can and have been known to change their religious beliefs.

Religious and political beliefs are still a matter of identity. They can be changed, but not really consciously. One doesn't really just decide to stop believing in god. The same cannot be said for occupation.

User avatar
Ifreann
Post Overlord
 
Posts: 163895
Founded: Aug 07, 2005
Iron Fist Socialists

Postby Ifreann » Fri May 27, 2016 7:42 am

Obviously attacking first responders in the course of their duties is more serious than attacking someone delivering pizza(though not by much), but it's not a hate crime.
He/Him

beating the devil
we never run from the devil
we never summon the devil
we never hide from from the devil
we never

User avatar
Ostroeuropa
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 58536
Founded: Jun 14, 2006
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ostroeuropa » Fri May 27, 2016 7:45 am

It isn't a hate crime, but it's a mechanism which makes sense to use to protect first responders. There's not much sense in a seperate beaurocracy or seperate statute to fulfill ultimately the same de-facto role as the hate crime legislation.
So it'd be a legal fiction (i think) done to save everyones time and money.

legal fiction
noun
an assertion that is accepted as true for legal purposes, even though it may be untrue or unproven.
Last edited by Ostroeuropa on Fri May 27, 2016 7:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
Ostro.MOV

There is an out of control trolley speeding towards Jeremy Bentham, who is tied to the track. You can pull the lever to cause the trolley to switch tracks, but on the other track is Immanuel Kant. Bentham is clutching the only copy in the universe of The Critique of Pure Reason. Kant is clutching the only copy in the universe of The Principles of Moral Legislation. Both men are shouting at you that they have recently started to reconsider their ethical stances.

User avatar
Kelinfort
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 16394
Founded: Nov 10, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Kelinfort » Fri May 27, 2016 7:45 am

Well it makes sense if the express motive is to kill an officer or an EMT because of their position.


Eh, it's not that big a deal. Though there definitely needs to be hate crime legislation for transgender victims of crime.

User avatar
Esternial
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 54394
Founded: May 09, 2009
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Esternial » Fri May 27, 2016 7:45 am

Ifreann wrote:Obviously attacking first responders in the course of their duties is more serious than attacking someone delivering pizza(though not by much), but it's not a hate crime.

Some people really hate it when their pizza's cold.

User avatar
Alvecia
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 20360
Founded: Aug 17, 2015
Democratic Socialists

Postby Alvecia » Fri May 27, 2016 7:46 am

Esternial wrote:
Ifreann wrote:Obviously attacking first responders in the course of their duties is more serious than attacking someone delivering pizza(though not by much), but it's not a hate crime.

Some people really hate it when their pizza's cold.

Cold pizza is breakfast food. I don't want to have to wait until morning to have my pizza.

User avatar
Aethrys
Minister
 
Posts: 2714
Founded: Apr 14, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Aethrys » Fri May 27, 2016 7:48 am

Merizoc wrote:
Aethrys wrote:
Should attacks on people because of their religion be considered hate crimes? People can and have been known to change their religious beliefs.

Religious and political beliefs are still a matter of identity. They can be changed, but not really consciously. One doesn't really just decide to stop believing in god. The same cannot be said for occupation.


One doesn't just decide to stop needing an income either. It takes a significant effort and commitment to become a first responder. It seems a bit absurd to say "Well they can just change careers."

What exactly is the harm here? If a serial arsonist decides to start killing firefighters because they like to spoil his fun and put out his pretty blazes and gets caught doing so, he gets a heavier sentence. Why all the outrage at an effort to get people to stop killing emergency services personnel?
"Concentration of power in a political machine is bad; and an Established Church is only a political machine; it was invented for that; it is nursed, cradled, preserved for that; it is an enemy to human liberty, and does no good which it could not better do in a split-up and scattered condition." - Mark Twain

User avatar
Arlathan and the Dales
Envoy
 
Posts: 337
Founded: May 26, 2016
Ex-Nation

Postby Arlathan and the Dales » Fri May 27, 2016 7:50 am

Great Kauthar wrote:
The Romulan Republic wrote:
To undermine civil rights legislation and minority rights and score points with Right wing voters who hate Black Lives Matter (or just hate Black people)?

Seriously, its a red state. What do people expect?

BLM are terrorists

I would suggest reacquainting yourself with the definition.

I understand the idea behind this, given the greater hostility towards first responders, mostly the police, recently. However, it seems to me that the name is somewhat of a misnomer. While there are already of course penalties for attacks on first responders, it is understandable that some areas would want to instate more.
Ridersyl wrote:"Mom, there's liberals in my soup!"
The Black Forrest wrote:
Vaikneland wrote:I have an understanding of basically politics and economics

You do? Can you teach Trump?

User avatar
MERIZoC
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 23694
Founded: Dec 05, 2013
Left-wing Utopia

Postby MERIZoC » Fri May 27, 2016 7:50 am

Aethrys wrote:
Merizoc wrote:Religious and political beliefs are still a matter of identity. They can be changed, but not really consciously. One doesn't really just decide to stop believing in god. The same cannot be said for occupation.


One doesn't just decide to stop needing an income either. It takes a significant effort and commitment to become a first responder. It seems a bit absurd to say "Well they can just change careers."

What exactly is the harm here? If a serial arsonist decides to start killing firefighters because they like to spoil his fun and put out his pretty blazes and gets caught doing so, he gets a heavier sentence. Why all the outrage at an effort to get people to stop killing emergency services personnel?

If a serial arsonist is killing firemen, he's already going away for a long time. There's no need to muddle hate crime legislation with inconsistencies.

User avatar
Ostroeuropa
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 58536
Founded: Jun 14, 2006
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ostroeuropa » Fri May 27, 2016 7:50 am

Kelinfort wrote:Well it makes sense if the express motive is to kill an officer or an EMT because of their position.


Eh, it's not that big a deal. Though there definitely needs to be hate crime legislation for transgender victims of crime.


I'd rather just cut out the middle man and word the law in such a way as to cover "Violent crimes committed against individuals for impersonal reasons relating to their demographics or other status which reveals the perpetrator to be a danger to everyone in the community who holds status in common with the victim." or however you'd legally phrase it, because that's the crux of the argument.
That the crime isn't "personal", but based on the perpetrators targetting of a group.

It seems reasonable that for the same reason a violent racist is jailed longer for hate crimes (Danger to the targetted community), so too should be a wacko who goes out of their way to target postal workers.
Ostro.MOV

There is an out of control trolley speeding towards Jeremy Bentham, who is tied to the track. You can pull the lever to cause the trolley to switch tracks, but on the other track is Immanuel Kant. Bentham is clutching the only copy in the universe of The Critique of Pure Reason. Kant is clutching the only copy in the universe of The Principles of Moral Legislation. Both men are shouting at you that they have recently started to reconsider their ethical stances.

User avatar
Kelinfort
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 16394
Founded: Nov 10, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Kelinfort » Fri May 27, 2016 7:52 am

Great Kauthar wrote:
The Romulan Republic wrote:
To undermine civil rights legislation and minority rights and score points with Right wing voters who hate Black Lives Matter (or just hate Black people)?

Seriously, its a red state. What do people expect?

BLM are terrorists

Er, no.

User avatar
Ostroeuropa
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 58536
Founded: Jun 14, 2006
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ostroeuropa » Fri May 27, 2016 7:52 am

Merizoc wrote:
Aethrys wrote:
One doesn't just decide to stop needing an income either. It takes a significant effort and commitment to become a first responder. It seems a bit absurd to say "Well they can just change careers."

What exactly is the harm here? If a serial arsonist decides to start killing firefighters because they like to spoil his fun and put out his pretty blazes and gets caught doing so, he gets a heavier sentence. Why all the outrage at an effort to get people to stop killing emergency services personnel?

If a serial arsonist is killing firemen, he's already going away for a long time. There's no need to muddle hate crime legislation with inconsistencies.


The point is that they are a danger to the community still.

Killing your spouse? You've got no other spouses. You aren't necessarily a danger to the wider community.
Killing people who can't park properly? You're a danger to the wider community, and the sentence should reflect that.
Ostro.MOV

There is an out of control trolley speeding towards Jeremy Bentham, who is tied to the track. You can pull the lever to cause the trolley to switch tracks, but on the other track is Immanuel Kant. Bentham is clutching the only copy in the universe of The Critique of Pure Reason. Kant is clutching the only copy in the universe of The Principles of Moral Legislation. Both men are shouting at you that they have recently started to reconsider their ethical stances.

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bovad, Pasong Tirad, Tungstan

Advertisement

Remove ads