"Mom, I understand if you don't want to love me anymore"

[dsc]

This is what Sean Kennedy said to him mother when he told her he was gay. Sean was killed about a month ago outside a bar. His killer uttered anti gay epithets both before and after the attack. Now his mother, who decided to still love him, is left fighting for a hate crimes bill in South Carolina. Yet some, both here and in Washington, feel we don't need a hate crimes law. How many 20 year olds have to be burried? How many have to have their parents take them up on Sean's offer?

Don't we, and society, deserve better?

http://www.q-notes.com/top2007/top01_061607.html

on edit details of crime

Kennedy was punched in the face and knocked to the ground as he was exiting a Greenville bar on May 16. When his head hit the pavement, he was fatally wounded. An investigation into the crime continues, including a probable motive that Kennedy’s killer uttered anti-gay comments either before or after the attack.

[yardwork]

1. I am in tears.

[wicket]

6. *gulp*

Me too

:cry:

[BOSSHOG]

2. It is incredibly telling

that those who oppose hate crimes legislation are people who hate. And more telling that many of those hate in the name of Jesus Christ.

[SeattleGirl]

42. You said it, BOSSHOG.

This kind of thing just sickens me. Who appointed these people God? What gives them the right to decide it's okay to wipe another human being from the face of the earth just because you don't agree with who they are, or what they stand for, or what their lifestyle is?

I feel so badly for this young man, and for his mother. Being a parent myself, I just cannot imagine the pain this woman must be going through.

[alarimer]

58. The main opposition comes from the religious right

I guess they want to hate whomever they want. And they do. I suggest everyone read American Fascists; it is very chilling. THEY are the real enemy- not Muslims, not terrorists, not mainstream Republicans (although they are partly to blame for the rise of the religious fundamentalists in their party), not atheists, not other Democrats. I cannot stress enough that our real enemies are internal. And we must do something (although I do not know what and neither does Chris Hedges, the author).

[Solly Mack]

3. Yes....we deserve better

we being the whole of society

:(

[cynatnite]

4. I don't understand the need for it...

The poor guy is still dead and his killer will still be convicted of murder regardless of the motive.

[dsc]

7. Without a hate crime modificiation

this case would be treated as if it was a garden variety fight. This isn't a garden variety fight.

[cynatnite]

13. Garden variety?

I don't understand. If someone beats the hell out of a woman and calls her names while they are doing it...should that be treated as a hate crime? I just have a tough time understanding why a motive like this should be singled out over others such as greed, drug addiction, etc. Would committing a crime because of hatred be treated more severely than one with the motive of greed?

[dsc]

15. I editted

this crime was one hit not a bunch of hits. Frankly this would be a pretty straight forward manslaughter case but for this motive.

[cynatnite]

18. I'm curious as to what the final outcome of this tragedy will be n/t

[dsc]

20. same here

Greenville has a vibrant gay community but is very conservative. This really is a close call in my mind as to what will happen.

[phantom power]

30. Are you saying that the "normal" penalty for beating a man to death is insufficient?

I mean, my take on the hate-crime subject is: that if the minimum penalty for beating a man to death for any reason isn't multiple decades, then that law ought to be changed. The way to fix it isn't to introduce the difficult task of proving a "hate crime."

The brutality of what they did is crystal clear. I assume that proving something subtle like "hate" as a motive is never straightforward. If the goal is to increase the severity of the sentencing, I'd rather hang that off of things that are easier to prove. Like, straight-up beating a man to death.

Avoiding all the legal contortions surrounding motives like "hate" just seems like a more reliable way to lock these people up for longer periods of time.

[dsc]

31. This was as far as I can tell a one punch case

and I think it could easily be a manslaughter case. Yes, I think this crime should be treated differently than a case where a bar fight gets out of control. Without hate crimes I don't see that happening.

[AlienGirl]

37. Motive is already *always* a factor in the charge and the sentencing

Motive is one of the things that distinguishes murder one from murder two, and even murder from manslaughter. To factor in whether bias was part of the motive doesn't add a new factor, it only expands on the existing ones. (And allows bias crimes to be tracked more easily in computer systems, so you can tell if you're getting an organized outbreak.)

Tucker

[lastliberalintexas]

47. Nope, that's intent

Motive is irrelevant to criminal prosecutions in the US. I'm not going to try to explain the difference yet again, as I've posted this explanation numerous times on DU. If anyone is truly interested, s/he can search.


I also get really fed up with the posts on these threads painting ALL anti-hate crimes legislation people as evil, hate-filled conservative Nazi types. In the vast majority of cases, hate crimes legislation is just another way for the prosecution community to introduce the death penalty into cases in which it would not otherwise be an allowable punishment. Those of us against the death penalty, for any and all crimes, have legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons to also oppose the majority of hate crimes bills for that very reason.

It's bloody amazing to me that so many of the same people who claim or tend to be anti-death penalty support hate crimes bills without understanding the death penalty implications involved.

[dsc]

48. How is killing a witness, intent, and not motive?

How is killing for money (being a hitman) intent, and not motive? Both of those in many US states can get one the death penalty for crimes that otherwise wouldn't get it. That is punishing motive.

[lastliberalintexas]

52. It is still intent

The additional punishments are for the supposedly extraordinary circumstances of the crime, not the motive behind it. Again, one needs to understand the difference between intent and motive to understand why the cold blooded nature of muder for hire is not relevant to the motive behind the murder. And for killing a witness, the deterent factor there is actually the interference with the judicial system, not the reason for the murder. And yes, I still oppose the death penalty in those instances as well.


Shorthand- motive equals reason the crime defendant X committed the crime, intent equals defendant X meant to commit the criminal act.

[dsc]

54. Then why can't we say that the intent of a hate crime

is somehow different and needs deterring. You can't have it both ways. If we can deter people from murdering witnesses on the grounds of the greater damage to the justice system, we can deter people from murdering people on the basis of being gay due to the harm that does to society. It seems you are saying intent means what you wish it to mean and nothing else. Words don't work that way.

[lastliberalintexas]

61. Because that isn't the legal definition of intent

What you are describing, the hatred involved as the *reason* for the murder of a gay person, is motive. The fact that the (hypothetical) defendant meant to kill the gay person by intentionally shooting/knifing him/her shows the necessary mens rea for a murder prosecution.


Muder harms society regardless of who the victim is. As heartbreaking as crimes against children are to most people, the murder of a child is treated essentially the same as the murder of a 30 year old straight white Christian male. And that is because the INTENT involved is the same- the intent to kill another person. The reason for doing so is irrelevant. Did someone kill the child to prevent her from telling the police about molestation or to get her tennis shoes? It doesn't matter to our system, since the end result, the death of the child, was had regardless of why the act was committed.


I can understand why some people are in favor of hate crimes bills. I just don't like how opponents are painted with one broad brush for our opposition.

[dsc]

66. That isn't true either

In many states murdering a child can get you the dp when the very same murder of an adult wouldn't. But my point is, that if murdering witnesses isn't motive, I don't know what is. You try to gloss over it by arguing that the state has a special reason to protect witnesses, but that isn't dismissing murdering witnesses as motive it is simply giving a reason to punish that motive. I just happen to wish to punish this motive.

[Prophet 451]

73. "but for" clause

I'm not sure if this applies in the States, my training is in British law but here, this case would be charged as murder because the "but for" clause dictates that, had it not been for the defendant's conduct, the victim would not have died, therefore the defendant is liable for murder (or possibly some lesser homicide depending on the exact circumstances).

[lastliberalintexas]

75. Not likely in the US

It's been quite some time since I studied it, but I don't remember the Model Penal Code addressing but for causation, as that is usually something considered in civil cases in the US. But under the admittedly very few facts given in the article, it seems that he could still be charged with some sort of depraved indifference homicide, which does carry a harsher penalty than the manslaughter mentioned by dsc.


Though it would be nice if a criminal attorney could address these issues!

[Prophet 451]

78. I'd offer but...

...your legal code is very different from ours with regard to homicide legislation.

[H2O Man]

64. Actually

while it is not necessary for the prosecutor to present any evidence at all about motive, it is not absolutely irrelevant. Thus, prosecutors tend to introduce evidence of motive when possible.

I support hate crimes legislation, and in no sense am pro-death penalty. Hate crimes are frequently things other than crimes that involve a potential death penalty. I think it is weak to attempt to introduce this as a reason to be against hate crimes legislation. I would suggest that even a casual familiarity with the SPLC would remove any doubt about that.

[lastliberalintexas]

68. A prosecutor likes motive because s/he likes to

explain to the jury why someone did something. None of us wants to believe that John Doe shot Jim Bob for the fun of it, so we want to think that he did it for the insurance money or because Jim Bob was having an affair with John's wife, etc. Motive is still irrelevant to prosecutions, though, since a prosecutor will still push a case even without evidence of a motive. A prosecutor MUST have evidence of intent, and whatever level of intent is involved determines which crime the suspect can be charged with.


It depends on the particular bill involved, and I am not personally opposed to all hate crimes legislation. I just pointed out that there are perfectly valid reasons for one to oppose this type of legislation without one being a mouth breathing, knuckle dragging republican nazi type, as is stated quite a few times in this thread already. Even some long term posters I usually enjoy reading have made the supposed observation that those who oppose hate crimes bills do so out of hate. Not always true, and that is what I addressed.

[H2O Man]

70. Nope.

While it is true that a prosecutor has no obligation to introduce evidence regarding a motive, that does not mean it is irrelevant. Prosecutors do not tend to attempt to introduce irrelevant evidence to gain convictions. When possible, they surely do attempt to introduce evidence of motive.

A person can have reasons other than "hate" that could lead them to oppose hate crimes legislation. However, they should never feel the need to introduce something that is without question false, such as the claim that supporting hate crimes legislation is in any way the same as advocating the death penalty. It's a topic that can be better discussed without applying false motivation to others, or showing a contempt for the truth.

[lastliberalintexas]

74. Alrighty then

"Prosecutors do not tend to attempt to introduce irrelevant evidence to gain convictions."

LOL. I don't think I can even respond to such a statement.


We will simply have to agree to disagree. Glad to see you and others correct the posters who say that the only reason people can oppose these bills is out of hate, though. Instead, most here are arguing with me over the legal definition of intent and motive, rather than addressing the concern I've raised. At least you did address the death penalty, even if in such a patronizing manner. Good day.

[H2O Man]

76. I'm confident

that most DUers who read this exchange will get a chuckle out of the thought of a defense attorney jumping to his/her feet when a prosecutor begins to introduce evidence of motive, and yelling out, "Objection! 'Motive' is entirely irrelevant!" (Irving Kanarek, perhaps?) There are, of course, cases where prosecutors are not allowed to introduce certain theories on possible motivation, but it is due to other reasons, such as lack of foundation. Still, readers can decide for themselves if motive is "irrelevant," how the heck it ends up such an important part of so many cases.

[H2O Man]

79. PS:

And, yes, you did catch me on the one line you quoted.

[lastliberalintexas]

81. You agree that motive is not a required element of the crime, correct?

Intent is however. I probably shouldn't have used the term irrelevant since that carries a legal meaning as well as a vernacular, but I still stand by my arguments that motive is not relevant to the discussion of whether charges are brought, which charges are brought and a conviction sought. Intent is. And you even agreed in your first post that motive is not needed by the prosecutors, merely desired, so I'm not really sure what we're arguing over?


And I'd also posit that motive ends up as an important part of discussions because many members of the bar still don't understand the distinction between motive and intent, much less John Q. Public. Not only that, but we as humans have a psychological desire to find the reason that something bad happened. After all, if we know why the Smith's child was abducted, we can prevent it from happening to ours, right?

[dogday]

85. And doesn't a jury want to know? Does it not make a

difference to them as to motive?

[dsc]

80. You brought that up, not us

and no where did I say the only motive to oppose this law is hate. I think many who oppose this law do hate, I think others are just misguided as to the fact our laws do punish motive.

[lastliberalintexas]

82. I brought up the distinction in response to a specific poster

who was asserting that motive is what determines the difference between muder one and murder two. The rest of my first post was addressing the sentiment expressed many times in this thread and on this board that anyone who opposes hate crimes bills must be a hater themselves, not necessarily made by any one poster on this thread but many.


I am not going to argue with you anymore about the difference between the 2, which one is required for prosecution and a necessary element of the crime, etc. Since many attorneys do not understand the difference, I can't expect everyone on a message board to either. A clue though is how you used the word motive in your post, ie, you can substitute reason in its place.

[dsc]

83. I will admit to not knowing the difference between killing a person

who witness you committing a crime (as a reason) and killing a person for being gay (as a reason). Either they both are motive or neither one is a motive.

[Kingshakabobo]

24. In this case, you may be correct......

.....but don't you want stiff penalties, as a deterrent, for the next asshole who thinks it's OK to jump in the car with his buddies (and a few baseball bats) and ride in to town to beat up some "fags"?

Chances are the perp didn't plan on killing the kid.

Maybe, just maybe, this wouldn't have happened if society put its foot down by saying beating up people based on their sexual orientation will get you serious jail time......versus a nod and a wink from the cops.

[HardRocker05]

33. what if the perp bumped into the guy accidentally? should his punishment be the same?

of course not. motive has always been a factor in prosecution and sentencing of crimes, and it should be. yes, in the case of deliberate, cold-blooded murder, we hope that the punishment will be severe, regardless of motive, but what about crimes like assault, vandalism, harassment, etc.? should teens who randomly toilet-paper houses be given the same punishment as skinheads who spray-paint "DIE FAG" on somebody's garage?

[Recursion]

93. No, that's the difference between motive and intent, and between (broadly) manslaughter and murder

what if the perp bumped into the guy accidentally? should his punishment be the same?

In that scenario there is lack of intent. Speaking very broadly, that is the difference between manslaughter (actions resulting in a death when death was not the intent of the actions) and murder (actions resulting in a death when death was the intent of the action). Motive remains irrelevant in that question; in both cases, his motive (for bumping him or for beating him to death) might have been anti-homosexual bigotry.

The only justifiable legal theory I know of for hate crime laws is that they intimidate an entire community. The notorious example is the KKK lynching a black man: he may have been the direct target, but he was pretty clearly being killed to keep the entire black community in fear. It is not simply enough to show that person A killed person B out of some prejudice or bigotry.

In most cases, though, it's very hard to establish mens rea for a hate crime. Again, motive vs. intent: his intent had to be to intimidate the gay community as a whole. That's very hard to prove, especially with facts like these.

[jobycom]

57. A lesson in history.

For the first half or more of the 20th century, many black men were lynched. Often these lynchings were over some minor crime or perceived slight. The lynchings were public, and were attended by dozens or more white townsfolk, who often took pictures smiling and posing with the body afterwards. These lynchings were rarely if ever punished, because local investigators would claim they couldn't find any witnesses to the crime, or they didn't know who had done it. Often the local sheriff could be seen in the pictures.

No one other than the local law enforcement had jurisdiction, so the federal government couldn't step in. No federal laws were violated.

For decades, Congress tried to pass laws making lynching, or covering up lynching, a federal crime, so that these murders could be prosecuted. The southern Congresscritters always blocked the attempts, arguing that murder was already illegal, and no crime had to be created to make it more illegal. All the same stuff with hate crime opponents now.

So the lynchings continued, unpunished. During the Civil Rights era in the South, the crimes took new forms, where civil rights volunteers would disappear or turn up dead in states like Mississippi or Alabama. Local officials would investigate, and find no one guilty. Though they might punish someone with a couple of years in jail for some related crime, like inciting a riot, the murderers usually were unpunished. This boldened the attackers, obviously, as young racist punks saw that it was pretty much okay to kill black folk and white folk who helped them. The small chance of suffering serious consequences was outweighed by the terror they could cause.

Hate crimes are more than simple murders. The killer in the OP could get off with manslaughter, or even a simple assault, by arguing he only meant to push the victim, or punch him. Local authorities, who face local voters, may not be willing to pursue tougher penalties against local kids who some of the town sympathizes with. But the crime the killier is guilty of goes beyond simple murder. It was not his intention to just kill. It was his intention to kill (or at least hurt) the victim, and by so doing to terrorize everyone else in the target group. He hated gays, so he killed a gay man, but he also meant to assualt the entire gay community, to tell all of them that they weren't safe.

That's why hate crime legislation must be passed. It is not an attempt to punish someone more for the same crime. It is an attempt to define the true crime. As with lynching, hate crimes are committed to "put people in their place," to "make people afraid." The action and the intention go far beyond the one immediate victim. Justice must therefore reach beyond the immediate victim to be complete.

[Cronus Protagonist]

97. True, and it won't stop a single bigot bully from hurting another

I think hate crimes are the start of a very slippery slope.

[rurallib]

5. Something I heard on Thom Hartmann one day

I do not like the term "hate crime". Never have. One day Hartmann says that Dems should call these crimes what they are: terrorism plain and simple.

[Rosemary2205]

8. I like that. A lot.

I would like the law to recognize that people who go looking to maim and kill gays, blacks, muslims, whatever are terrorists. They are planning the death and injury of innocents to make a political statement. That is terrorism.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

11. I agree with that completely.

Toss in the abortion clinic bombers too. I have NEVER understood why those assholes aren't called terrorists.

[HardRocker05]

34. it's true; it's violence against a few individuals that is meant to terrorize a whole population. nt

[Morgana LaFey]

41. Very well put. And it applies to gays, to blacks and other

minorities, and to women. I like the term terrorism as well. I completely and totally support hate crime legislation.

BTW, it's meant to terrorize a whole population IN ORDER TO manipulate and control them: keep them "in the closet," subservient, quiet, compliant, not making waves, shy and retiring (certainly not "uppity"), keep them from asking for or insisting on their full rights as citizens, keep them out of public, on and on. And afraid and shaking in their boots is a nice extra benefit.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

87. Here's my question......

....when it comes to terrorism, is it possible for a white straight male to be terrorized as well?

For example, what would the beating of Reginald Denny fall under?

[Morgana LaFey]

88. Oh, brother, you didn't get the point

Why not go back and read the several posts -- or the whole thread, and THEN come back and ask your question.

In the meantime, it's the familiar old White Male complaint: "BUt they're not talking about US. We have problems too! We want all the discussions to be about us. We're the only ones who count."

See if you can come back and prove me wrong, okay?

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

91. Huh?

Prove you wrong on what? Also, are you accusing me of using a "white male" meme for asking a simple question? Very reactionary on your part.

A hate crime/terrorism bill is fine, as long as we punish ANYONE who commits a physical attack against anyone for the simple act of being a race, religion, creed, color or orientation they don't like. Minority or not. I've read people here in the past actually claim a minority cannot commit a hate crime, which is insane.

[dsc]

94. actually hate crime laws are written, and have been applied,

to assume that minorities can indeed commit them. For example the law says that a crime committed on the basis of race not that those committed against blacks.

[Morgana LaFey]

95. Can't bother to do the work to get it, to understand what was

in error about your previous post.

I see.

[porphyrian]

9. That is horrible, and I hope the murderer is brought to justice.

However, that doesn't his death any more or less significant than any other son or daughter who is murdered. Hate crime laws don't prevent hate crimes, they simply allow for more punishment of a crime that already carries the harshest punishment in our judicial system, making it redundant and unnecessary.

Cold blooded murder is cold blooded murder, regardless of what the murderer says.

What we need is equal treatment of ALL with regards to the law, not further segregation by legislation.

[dsc]

12. I editted afterward

but the details of this crime make it clear that without a hate modification it would be hard to make a case for anything above manslaughter and the relatively light sentence that carries.

[cynatnite]

16. This could also be 2nd or 3rd degree murder...

It may not have the premediation that a first degree requires. That'll depend on the outcome of the investigation. Also, a judge will determine the punishment. This doesn't appear to be a case of manslaughter, IMO. Oh, and I'm not a lawyer. Just offering a bit of what I've been told.

And you could be right about a charge of manslaughter, too.

[dsc]

19. It could be

I would be afraid as a prosecutor of both the one punch and putting the victim on trial. I would rather have the hate crime stick to get the years added.

[porphyrian]

21. That is unacceptable, and one of the reasons our justice system needs overhauling.

I just think hate crimes legislation only patches a broken system temporarily, and may cause more damage than it prevents in the long term. I want liberty and justice for all, not in proportion to what groups you are identified with.

[lastliberalintexas]

49. Why is is unacceptable?

If the intent to kill is not present, the prosecution does not have evidence of the required mens rea to prosecute for murder. Period.

The intent to harm WAS present, regardless of the motive, so the prosecution still has a number of options short of murder one. Even depraved indifference or reckless heart murder might be an available charge depending on the laws of the state.


So many people on here sound like law and order types who just want to punish, punish, punish. Just because in these cases the perpetrator is someone we as liberals don't like. Guess what? The law isn't made on the backs of nice people- our rights and protections have been obtained from cases in which the defendants were rapists, murderers, and molesters. It doesn't make the right any less necesary or any less applicable to nice people just because it was secured by a an attorney working on behalf of a psycho.

[dsc]

50. We just don't want this treated the same as a true accident

which this wasn't. This isn't some sort of fight that goes out of control it is an attack, probably meant not to be fatal, which turned fatal. That deserves significant jail time.

[lastliberalintexas]

56. Most crimes aren't accidents, though

There are the rare cases of intoxicated manslaughter or negligent homicide, but neither is involved here. This was *clearly* a criminal act (absent evidence of self defense, and certainly none is noted).

But if the intent to kill was absent, should the suspect still be charged or convicted of murder just because he hated the victim because the victim was gay (or black or female or Christian or republican or...)? Say yes to that, and we're traveling down a very slippery slope in which our very criminal justice system is turned on its head. It is INTENT which has (almost?) always determined the severity of the crime, and rarely anything else.

[dsc]

59. No he shouldn't be tried for murder

but he should get several years added to his sentence over someone who committed a run of the mill manslaughter.

[lastliberalintexas]

65. But then that's my problem here

Enhanced punishment only adds years if someone is not already facing life. What if this case did involve the murder of a gay person, would you then support a death penalty enhancement?

[dsc]

67. No but not all murderers get life

the average term for murder is something like 8 years.

[lastliberalintexas]

69. Well, then we mostly agree

I don't oppose hate crimes bills per se. I was just pointing out one legitimate reason that people do oppose them in most forms as introduced, ie, the death penalty.


In Texas in the 1990s there was a push to get hate crimes legislation, and the pressure mounted after the James Byrd death in the late 90s. The only reason that many of the conservatives who supported the bill did so was because it opened up the prosecution's options in seeking the death penalty. As monstrous as I found that crime to be, I also opposed the death penalty for Mr. Byrd's murderers.

[redqueen]

10. This country is seriously sick.

:(

[Cha]

14. That's so

sad..poor thing! Best of Fortune to Sean Kennedy's Mom in her up hill battle to getting the "Hate Crime" Legislation enacted!

[polichick]

17. Haters suck!

Yes, hate crimes legislation keeps brutality like this from being written off as something less.

[Spazito]

22. We have hate crime legislation in Canada and....

the world, as we know it, has not collapsed although opponents of the provisions forcast the "apocolypse" if this passed. Here is the legislation as written:


Criminal Code of Canada: Hate Provisions - Summary
"Hate" is defined as a crime under two parts of Canada’s Criminal Code: sections 318 and 319. To convict anyone under the Code, very specific proof is required: both of the criminal act itself, and of the intention or motivation to commit the crime. It isn’t enough that someone has said something hateful or untrue; the courts will only find someone guilty if they contravened the Code exactly, and if they did it deliberately.

In most cases, hate propaganda communicated through the Internet is an offence under the Criminal Code. Amendments to the Code, made under the Anti-Terrorism Act in December 2001, further clarify measures and offences regarding Internet hate crimes.

snip

Additional Hate Provisions

The courts may define the motivations of hate, bias or prejudice as aggravating factors when sentencing an offender for other offences, such as assault, damage to property, threatening, or harassment. The result is usually a more severe punishment (section 718.2(a)(i)).

http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/resources/legislation/canadian_law/federal/criminal_code/criminal_code_hate.cfm

[lastliberalintexas]

63. You also don't routinely impose the death penalty

just for the fun of it as we do here in the states.

[Spazito]

84. Very true, NO death penalty here

I am not sure what the connection is wrt hate crime legislation and the death penalty?

[helderheid]

23. rec 4

[malaise]

25. I will never understand hate crimes

fugging never. I feel so sad for his mother. :cry: :cry:

[GumboYaYa]

26. What kind of world do we live in where a child is scared that his/her

parent won't love him/her b/c of sexual orientation.

The fact that this poor child actually thought that tells me more about the way that homosexuals in America face pervasive discrimination and abuse than just about anything I have ever heard.

[dsc]

27. It struck me as well

I never articulated that to my parents but I did think it might come to that. It does speak volumes.

[GumboYaYa]

28. I honestly can't think of a thing in the world that would make me stop

loving my children. I would still love them even if they became Republicans; I would question their sanity and my parenting skills, but I would still love them. It is very hard for me as a heterosexual to understand that level of discrimination. Some things you have to experience to ever be able to fully understand.

My heart goes out to this poor young man (unfortunately, posthumously) and his family, and to you to DSC. I hope you and your family have a good relationship now.

[dsc]

29. We do

luckily I largely was being paraniod, but sadly all too many gay kids aren't being paranoid in this regard.

[FloridaJudy]

32. Me neither

I can't imagine not loving a child because he or she was gay. I would be fearful for them because of crimes like this, but I would love them just as fiercely.

On the other hand, I didn't speak to my son for a week after he voted for Nader (I wrote angry notes instead: "Put the f@#king butter back in the fridge!"). Maybe it would have been different if we hadn't lived in Florida...

We've long since made up, though.

[polichick]

35. "I would still love them even if they became Republicans"

Lol ~ I've said the same thing. Even if they became right-wing religious nutjob Republicans! (Although I'd definitely step-up my prayer schedule.)

[Midlodemocrat]

39. Neither can I. But my teenager told me that a lesbian friend

was essentially 'written out' of her family when she came out. They told her that she was going to Hell.

What kind of a person tells a 16yo that?

Boggles the fucking mind.

[FloridaJudy]

45. A colleague at work once cried when she told me

She'd just discovered her child was gay. I guess she thought (rightly) that I'd be sympathetic because I was the most outspoken liberal in the place. I'll never forget her words "I still love him as much as ever, but I wish he weren't gay. Am I a bad person for feeling like this? I'm just so god damned scared for him! The world isn't kind to gay people".

What a sad comment. Unfortunately, it's true. At least this kid lucked out in the mother department: I can't imagine what your daughter's friend went through.

Bloody idiots.

[dsc]

46. Honestly she has some right to be afraid

maybe not as much as say 20 years ago, but there is still some legitimate basis for fear.

[Midlodemocrat]

53. I agree. I would be frightened for my child the way society is today.

I have three and all we have ever wanted for them was to be happy. Three completely different spirits and personalities who came from the same genes. Remarkable.

If one of them were gay, I have to admit I would be frightened, but I think my children would have a better chance than a lot of other kids because they would be coming from an accepting, loving home.

That is huge first step. I can't imagine turning my back on one of mine. For anything. I just can't envision a scenario where I would do that. Nor their father.

[FloridaJudy]

62. Absolutely

And I'd be terrified myself: the Matthew Shepard murder was so sickening it was bound to strike fear into anyone who loves a gay person. It wasn't this mom I referred to as the idiot - I could understand and empathize with her reaction. It was the jerks who kicked their lesbian daughter out of the house. I find that type of mindset unfathomable.

[Morgana LaFey]

43. What has always gotten to me

was the story from a writer who said he prayed to die each night before going to bed: to wake up either different (i.e., "normal") or dead. That level of hopelessness and despair get to me.

That and the suicides. Gay teens are at much, much higher risk of suicide. Again: hopelessness and despair.

[GumboYaYa]

44. Have you read anything about the Haines family murders?

http://crimeblog.us/2007/06/19/haines-family-murders-motivation/ read that blog post for more info.

A teen son and his parents were brutally murdered by another teen One prominent theory for the motive is that the murdered teen was about to come out to his parents and tell them about a relationship with the murderer.

This is what happens when you get eight years of Republicans fanning the flames of homophobia (not that it didn't exist before, but it has been the cause du jour for rightwingers lately).

[dsc]

51. a true tragedy I can only hope he is in jail for a long, long, time.

[rucky]

36. Another hate crime in another red state.

just sayin'

[Matsubara]

38. That's horrible, but it doesn't address the merits of the legislation at all.

I personally favor the proposed legislation, ONLY because it extends hate crimes protections to all - right now only some groups are protected and that is unfair.

But in principle I am against the concept of hate crime laws, because I think the crime should be the issue, not the emotion that motivates it.


I hope the killer gets the book thrown at him, regardless.

[Midlodemocrat]

40. Neighbors of mine are burying their three month old baby boy tomorrow.

He died of SIDS on Monday. I would bet you any amount of money that they wouldn't give a rat's fucking ass about his sexual orientation if he were still alive.

People need to wake the fuck up to this. We need hate crime legislation, NOW.

[Eurobabe]

55. This is so sick, and so sad

I just don't understand this mentality at all, someone killing someone because of their sexual orientation. :wtf:

[rasputin1952]

60. This is a case of manslaughter. It is indeed a terrible crime,...

and prosecution is warranted, and if found guilty by a jury, the sentence should indeed fit the crime.

A human being was killed, the jury will look at the motive, his being gay might not have provoked the attack, but it is in the hands of the court and th jury.

No individual should be attacked like this, for whatever reason. But all of the laws in the world would not have prevented this attack, it is a matter of some people simply not respecting others, for whatever reason, and those people are a menace in any society. They need to be brought to Justice, the need to be dealt with.

I am not in favor of "extenuating" or "extrapolating" laws for any group. We are all humans, and deserve the same Rights, Privileges and Protections under the law. If this had been a straight man punched in the face leaving a bar, and subsequently died when he hit the pavement, would it be a "non-story"?

If, a jury found th perpetrator innocent, because the victim was gay, I'd be calling for heads to roll in the street instantaneously, and I'd hope the rest of the country would be screaming about it too.

[Atman]

71. Bravo.

But good luck with that. There are a lot of militant hate-crimers here. They HATE people who don't agree with them on this issue.

.

[rasputin1952]

77. I know, that is just the way it is...

we don't ahve all of the particualrs of the crime, but a crime has certainly been committed, and needs to be dealt with w/in the Justice System.

If a person beat a straight person, it is the same as if he beat a gay person. It should not happen, but in any case, the botom line is that a human was abused, and that is the crux of the problem. I don't hate anybody, but if I got into a tussle, and the guy I hit back was gay, would I be a "hate criminal", or jsut a person tha got into a fight. We don't know if he was struch because he was gay, or jsut because the other guy was a complete asshole...:shrug:

In any case, a life was lost because of a remarkably stupid act, and this person will most likely pay for a long time...this is the way it should be.

I feel for the victim and his family, no one should have to face this kind of tragedy; and I have contempt for the perteptrator. The biggest cause for an event like this, is the perpetrator is an asshole, and now he is a jailed asshole. Some people refuse to think before they act, and Justice will be served.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

92. Thank you

I find taking a human life "just for the hell of it" or for a few dollars just as morally reprehensable.

[rasputin1952]

96. Taking a human life, other than to protect oneself or family...

or other innocents is definitely morally reprehensible. It matters little of color, race, religion, sexual orientation or anything else that separates aspects of this society. We are all people, we all need to have the same protections under the law. Poor people are assaulted every day, we have no "hate crime legislation" pending that would increase penalties for assaults on the poor, and even if there were, it would not deter people from attacking them.

Gay, straight, male, female, white, black...whatever...we are people first, and equality is what is what we should be fighting for; everything else is founded on equality, w/o that, we are doomed as a society.

[Prophet 451]

72. You don't need a hate crimes bill

Some tinkering with the existing legislation would achieve the same effect and be far quicker to get onto the books.

[mondo joe]

86. That quote perfectly captures one of the most common gay experiences that most straight people

can barely imagine - the time of feeling utterly alien even to your own family.

Very, very sad.

[dsc]

89. It jumped right off the page at me

It still haunts me a little. Cases like this make me so angry that it sometimes overwhelms the hope.

[Jonathan50]

90. I am against unprovoked violence against anyone..

Breeders, gays, asexuals, whoever.

But I can speak from personal experience that people other than gays are targeted for violence strictly based on appearance or habits.

About thirty two years ago, some friends and I were out on the banks of the river smoking a little hash oil one night.

This was back when rednecks had short hair and hippies had long hair. (funny how things change sometimes)

Well, a couple of rednecks decided they were going to have a little fun with the hippies.

They scared my friends, who ran off. Then they came after me, to "teach me a lesson".

Unfortunately for them, they didn't know three things about me.

First, I'm a former Marine. Second, at the time I'd been riding my bicycle over a hundred miles a day. Third, the term "assassin" comes from "hashishin" after one who consumes hashish.

I lost it when one of them poked me in the face with a piece of steel pipe which I thought broke my front teeth. Basically I kicked their asses and then told my "friends" that I'd kick their's if they didn't come help me.

It very well could have ended up with me dead, my skull smashed with a heavy steel pipe.

And all because of the way I looked and my choice of recreational drug.

So, even though I'm about as het as you can get, I understand all too well what it is like to be assaulted just because someone doesn't like your "type".