Author Topic: Colin Kaepernick  (Read 13950 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online eric42434224

  • Posts: 3296
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: Colin Kaepernick
« Reply #455 on: November 15, 2017, 08:25:25 PM »
And my point was just that we can't and shouldn't use the fact that the victim IS black to prove that he was killed BECAUSE he was black (which I think is close to the truth in that Connecticut case).

Yeah I dont think you and I are in disagreement here.  I, nor anyone else in this thread, seemed to have posted anything contrary to what you posted above.  I was responding more to Bosk questioning if there even should be a difference between killing a black person, and killing a person because they were black.
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 19685
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Colin Kaepernick
« Reply #456 on: November 15, 2017, 08:55:54 PM »
How do you expect to prove that. "I didn't kill him because he's a filthy, stinking Belgian. I killed him because of the way he looked at me." You posted examples of increased penalties based on the class of the victim, but only one of them (murder for hire) seems to involve intent in the way we're using it. I think there's probably a good reason for that.

I posted the examples simply to prove that there are different penalties for different crimes in respect to murder/homicide.  Some directly related to an attribute of the victim. 

But I'm not really sure what you are suggesting here.  Should we not take intent into account?  Are we not able to prove intent?
We prove intent the same way we prove it with any other crime.  If intent can be proven, and the law allows for a different punishment due to that intent, so be it.
If it cant, then so be it.

I do not think there should be an extra penalty if simply the victim is black.  If they were killed BECAUSE they were black, and it can be clearly proven, i see no issue with the extra penalties.

If youre asking how we prove that someone killed another because of race, well that is another discussion me thinks.
Your examples all referred to different crimes because of the victim's class rather than the badguy's intent, which ironically we all seem to disagree with as it pertains to race. Killing somebody because he's a cop isn't a different crime than just killing somebody who happened to be a cop. To answer your question, I think the suspect's motivation is something better taken into account when figuring out punishment. Such a thing would make somebody more or less of an asshole in the eyes of a jury.

And I have to ask, what's the benefit of what you're proposing? Why should we be treating "I killed him because he's black" any differently than "I killed him because he's a dick?"
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Online eric42434224

  • Posts: 3296
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: Colin Kaepernick
« Reply #457 on: November 16, 2017, 04:56:39 AM »
How do you expect to prove that. "I didn't kill him because he's a filthy, stinking Belgian. I killed him because of the way he looked at me." You posted examples of increased penalties based on the class of the victim, but only one of them (murder for hire) seems to involve intent in the way we're using it. I think there's probably a good reason for that.

I posted the examples simply to prove that there are different penalties for different crimes in respect to murder/homicide.  Some directly related to an attribute of the victim. 

But I'm not really sure what you are suggesting here.  Should we not take intent into account?  Are we not able to prove intent?
We prove intent the same way we prove it with any other crime.  If intent can be proven, and the law allows for a different punishment due to that intent, so be it.
If it cant, then so be it.

I do not think there should be an extra penalty if simply the victim is black.  If they were killed BECAUSE they were black, and it can be clearly proven, i see no issue with the extra penalties.

If youre asking how we prove that someone killed another because of race, well that is another discussion me thinks.
Your examples all referred to different crimes because of the victim's class rather than the badguy's intent, which ironically we all seem to disagree with as it pertains to race. Killing somebody because he's a cop isn't a different crime than just killing somebody who happened to be a cop. To answer your question, I think the suspect's motivation is something better taken into account when figuring out punishment. Such a thing would make somebody more or less of an asshole in the eyes of a jury.

And I have to ask, what's the benefit of what you're proposing? Why should we be treating "I killed him because he's black" any differently than "I killed him because he's a dick?"

Well first, as posted above, I posted the list simply to illustrate there are different punishments for different murders.  Thats all, no need to read anything else into it.

But yes, some are because of a victims class, and some are due to intent (not just one, this is not a definitive list...just a few examples).  Not all referred to class.

Motivation/intent is always brought up at trial, isnt it?.  It is an integral part of the case....why only for sentencing?  In your example of killing a cop...Do you think the prosecution isn't going to bring up that the are seeking the death penalty, and try to make him look like an asshole in front of the jury for killing a cop?  Or a minor girl?  I'm really not sure of the relevance of your point.

To your question....
First, I am not sure what you think I am proposing.  I just said there are different punishments for different homicides.  That isnt in dispute, right?
I agreed that killing someone BECAUSE they are black should be eligible for a different punishment (if it is proven of course).  Not really proposing anything.
Second, I suppose that society has deemed certain attributes of people to be worthy of extra protection.  Race, age, sexual orientation, mental disability, and occupation are all examples of attributes of a victim that are protected by certain laws.  I'm ok with that.  Killing someone with those attributes might get you a harsher penalty.  Some simply by the victim being part of that class, some by being killed BECAUSE of that class.  Im ok with that too.
Being a dick has not been deemed by society as a protected class or attribute.  Thus not worthy of additional punishment if you kill someone who is being a dick.  Im ok with that too.  So not really proposing anything....just kind of agreeing with the way things are already I guess. 

Actually, I guess you can get a bigger punishment by killing someone who is being a dick.  If they are under 15 or are a cop.  Pretty good odds they are being a dick lol.  Jk kind of

« Last Edit: November 16, 2017, 05:04:52 AM by eric42434224 »
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline Cool Chris

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 5590
  • Gender: Male
  • Rest in Peace
Re: Colin Kaepernick
« Reply #458 on: November 16, 2017, 11:15:31 AM »
People are going to think that Kaepernick killed a black guy the way this thread is going!

Getting back to the topic of the two female roommates.....(The black girl moves out and the white girl posts to one of the social media things something to the effect of admitting that she pissed in the black girl's shampoo, stuck dirty tampons on her stuff, and even put the black girl's toothbrush up her own ass.  )... this sounds like a situation where a "crime" is being considered solely on the basis of race. I don't know if sticking someone's toothbrush up your ass is in and of itself a crime. But because the victim is black and the perp is white, it becomes a hate crime?
"Nostalgia is just the ability to forget the things that sucked" - Nelson DeMille, 'Up Country'

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 11021
  • Gender: Male
Re: Colin Kaepernick
« Reply #459 on: November 16, 2017, 11:31:08 AM »
People are going to think that Kaepernick killed a black guy the way this thread is going!

Getting back to the topic of the two female roommates.....(The black girl moves out and the white girl posts to one of the social media things something to the effect of admitting that she pissed in the black girl's shampoo, stuck dirty tampons on her stuff, and even put the black girl's toothbrush up her own ass.  )... this sounds like a situation where a "crime" is being considered solely on the basis of race. I don't know if sticking someone's toothbrush up your ass is in and of itself a crime. But because the victim is black and the perp is white, it becomes a hate crime?

That's what the protestors are saying.  I don't think so, but then again, we did that kind of dumb shit as a matter of course in college, even to people we LIKED. 

Online eric42434224

  • Posts: 3296
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: Colin Kaepernick
« Reply #460 on: November 16, 2017, 12:01:48 PM »
First, I Think some of that is considered assault.
Second, I wouldn't stick ANYTHING up my ass for anyone, for any reason, good or bad.
I'm glad I wasn't in your frat Stadler.
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3193
  • Hard-hearted harbinger of haggis
Re: Colin Kaepernick
« Reply #461 on: November 16, 2017, 12:04:39 PM »
First off
First, I Think some of that is considered assault.
Second, I wouldn't stick ANYTHING up my ass for anyone, for any reason, good or bad.
I'm glad I wasn't in your frat Stadler.
+1

Secondly
First, I Think some of that is considered assault.
Second, I wouldn't stick ANYTHING up my ass for anyone, for any reason, good or bad.
I'm glad I wasn't in your frat Stadler.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 11021
  • Gender: Male
Re: Colin Kaepernick
« Reply #462 on: November 16, 2017, 12:14:20 PM »
Wasn't in a frat. 

Online eric42434224

  • Posts: 3296
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: Colin Kaepernick
« Reply #463 on: November 16, 2017, 12:22:00 PM »
Wasn't in a frat.

So you stuck things up your ass willingly without hazing pressure?
Well I'm glad I wasn't in your Math club.  LOL.

I kid, I kid.  Just a joke.
Back to the topic lol
« Last Edit: November 16, 2017, 12:32:44 PM by eric42434224 »
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3193
  • Hard-hearted harbinger of haggis
Re: Colin Kaepernick
« Reply #464 on: November 16, 2017, 12:33:21 PM »
:rollin
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 19622
  • Gender: Male
Re: Colin Kaepernick
« Reply #465 on: November 16, 2017, 12:34:16 PM »
I've had stuff in my ass. Wasn't bad. I'll leave it at that.

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 19685
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Colin Kaepernick
« Reply #466 on: November 16, 2017, 12:37:41 PM »
So, um, anyway. . . what the girl did is definitely a crime, and probably wasn't racially motivated. People have been fucking with bad roomates for a very long time, and there's no reason to think this is any different.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Cool Chris

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 5590
  • Gender: Male
  • Rest in Peace
Re: Colin Kaepernick
« Reply #467 on: November 16, 2017, 12:51:38 PM »
Well I'm glad I wasn't in your Math club.  LOL.

"Nostalgia is just the ability to forget the things that sucked" - Nelson DeMille, 'Up Country'

Offline Harmony

  • Posts: 184
  • Gender: Female
Re: Colin Kaepernick
« Reply #468 on: November 16, 2017, 05:00:16 PM »
Um....well, this thread has taken a different turn.   :laugh:

Offline Cool Chris

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 5590
  • Gender: Male
  • Rest in Peace
Re: Colin Kaepernick
« Reply #469 on: November 16, 2017, 05:05:02 PM »
So, um, anyway. . . what the girl did is definitely a crime...

Just out of curiosity... what is the charge? Destruction of property?
"Nostalgia is just the ability to forget the things that sucked" - Nelson DeMille, 'Up Country'

Offline Harmony

  • Posts: 184
  • Gender: Female
Re: Colin Kaepernick
« Reply #470 on: November 16, 2017, 05:11:29 PM »
Assault with bodily fluids would be my guess.

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 19685
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Colin Kaepernick
« Reply #471 on: November 16, 2017, 05:13:29 PM »
So, um, anyway. . . what the girl did is definitely a crime...

Just out of curiosity... what is the charge? Destruction of property?
Vandalism, essentially. However many states, as Harmony just suggested, have specific crimes for assault with bodily fluids. Gotta be able to charge the burger flipper that hocks one up on Johnny's quarter-pounder.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline kingshmegland

  • defender of the brew!
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 37463
  • Gender: Male
  • Take that Beethoven, you deaf bastard!!
Re: Colin Kaepernick
« Reply #472 on: November 16, 2017, 08:12:22 PM »
I've had stuff in my ass. Wasn't bad. I'll leave it at that.

Hydroponic I bet. 
I don't like country music, but I don't mean to denigrate those who do. And for the people who like country music, denigrate means 'put down'. - Bob Newhart

So wait, we're spelling it wrong and king is spelling it right? What is going on here? :lol -- BlobVanDam

Offline portnoy311

  • Posts: 865
Re: Colin Kaepernick
« Reply #473 on: November 16, 2017, 11:47:06 PM »
You know how some guys say their best orgasms come from their partner stimulating their prostate? What in the hell was evolution smoking that day? I have FOMO for a lot of things, but not so much that one, which is odd since it involves the potential of untold ecstasy.

I had a really, really shitty roommate  move out before, and the other roommate 3 days later asked if I got a new toothbrush since he could see the guy screwing with ours before he left. I still cringe when I think about the possibility.

I have no idea if that applies as a hate crime. But those laws exist to stop groups like the KKK who were operating based on race and destabilizing communities at a greater degree than run of the mill assholes. I get the impetus, and think the only question is when the laws apply, which needs to be done on a case by case basis. I don't know enough details on this case to have an opinion.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 11021
  • Gender: Male
Re: Colin Kaepernick
« Reply #474 on: November 17, 2017, 06:25:49 AM »
You know how some guys say their best orgasms come from their partner stimulating their prostate? What in the hell was evolution smoking that day? I have FOMO for a lot of things, but not so much that one, which is odd since it involves the potential of untold ecstasy.

TMI ALERT:   Happened to me once, in between high school and college (with a college girl) and it's everything they say it is.  That's not something that comes up much, though, and I'm self-conscious enough to not bring it up myself, but if the opportunity presents for you all...

Quote
I had a really, really shitty roommate  move out before, and the other roommate 3 days later asked if I got a new toothbrush since he could see the guy screwing with ours before he left. I still cringe when I think about the possibility.

I have no idea if that applies as a hate crime. But those laws exist to stop groups like the KKK who were operating based on race and destabilizing communities at a greater degree than run of the mill assholes. I get the impetus, and think the only question is when the laws apply, which needs to be done on a case by case basis. I don't know enough details on this case to have an opinion.

Slippery Slope Alert:  At some point though, doesn't EVERYTHING devolve into a "hate crime"?   There has to be some degree of dislike for a number of crimes.   I philosophically object to the ideology that we should consider "hate" for a race or religion somehow "worse" or "more dangerous" than hate for, say, alone defenseless women (rape), ex-partners (crimes of passion), or old people in rental cars (there was a rash of crime in Florida not too long ago where thieves were specifically targeting old people in rental cars).   

Offline portnoy311

  • Posts: 865
Re: Colin Kaepernick
« Reply #475 on: November 19, 2017, 07:32:40 PM »
Well, the slippery slope fallacy is a fallacy for a reason. I do think the devil is in the details, and taking things on a case by case basis. Which is the strength of our legal system and why I fundamentally oppose calls to streamline even the most slam dunk of cases.

I haven't been able to see the results after a very quick Google search, but those three black kids who kidnapped and tortured that mentally disabled white kid in Chicago after the election because he was white? Absolutely a hate crime. It was meant to scare white people. Same with all the examples where the races were reversed. They're meant to be laws to protect against targeted intimidation of groups. I'm all for them. If it's found some chick stuck a toothbrush up her ass and it wasn't a hate crime, that's up to the judge and / or jury. Calls of slippery slope don't hold much water here, imo.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2017, 07:38:11 PM by portnoy311 »

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 19685
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Colin Kaepernick
« Reply #476 on: November 20, 2017, 08:22:06 AM »
If you want to declare shitty roommates a protected class deserving of hate crime protection then I'll go along with charging her. All we have now is an assumption based on the fact that the offender is white and the victim Jamaican.

And from a pure logic perspective slippery slopes are fallacies. In the legal world not so much. The second the landscape shifts lawyers run wild in every direction they can to explore its newfound limits.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Cool Chris

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 5590
  • Gender: Male
  • Rest in Peace
Re: Colin Kaepernick
« Reply #477 on: November 20, 2017, 08:30:28 AM »
All we have now is an assumption based on the fact that the offender is white and the victim Jamaican.

A while perp and a minority victim is enough to constitute a hate crime. Duh.

Still not sure how fucking with someone's toothbrush is assault, but whatever. Why not Destruction of Property?

So... Colin Kaepernick, eh? Named Citizen of the Year by GQ (quick, name any past winner of this "honor.") GQ starts the article "Colin Kaepernick Will Not Be Silenced" which is funny since I haven't heard anything actually from him in over a year. Guess they are including those who hijacked his message. 

I've been up since 5am and I am grumpy.
"Nostalgia is just the ability to forget the things that sucked" - Nelson DeMille, 'Up Country'

Offline Ben_Jamin

  • Posts: 7922
  • Gender: Male
  • Do a nice one for grandma
Re: Colin Kaepernick
« Reply #478 on: November 20, 2017, 10:29:36 AM »
How do you expect to prove that. "I didn't kill him because he's a filthy, stinking Belgian. I killed him because of the way he looked at me." You posted examples of increased penalties based on the class of the victim, but only one of them (murder for hire) seems to involve intent in the way we're using it. I think there's probably a good reason for that.

I posted the examples simply to prove that there are different penalties for different crimes in respect to murder/homicide.  Some directly related to an attribute of the victim. 

But I'm not really sure what you are suggesting here.  Should we not take intent into account?  Are we not able to prove intent?
We prove intent the same way we prove it with any other crime.  If intent can be proven, and the law allows for a different punishment due to that intent, so be it.
If it cant, then so be it.

I do not think there should be an extra penalty if simply the victim is black.  If they were killed BECAUSE they were black, and it can be clearly proven, i see no issue with the extra penalties.

If youre asking how we prove that someone killed another because of race, well that is another discussion me thinks.
Your examples all referred to different crimes because of the victim's class rather than the badguy's intent, which ironically we all seem to disagree with as it pertains to race. Killing somebody because he's a cop isn't a different crime than just killing somebody who happened to be a cop. To answer your question, I think the suspect's motivation is something better taken into account when figuring out punishment. Such a thing would make somebody more or less of an asshole in the eyes of a jury.

And I have to ask, what's the benefit of what you're proposing? Why should we be treating "I killed him because he's black" any differently than "I killed him because he's a dick?"

You know this is my question, Why does one shoot to kill rather than apprehend the suspect? Doesn't it make the job a bit easier if you can question the suspect, of his actions and intent? Learn why he did it then apply that to future scenarios.

By shooting the suspect, likely killing them, it sends a message of, they're low-life, rather one off the streets then dealing with them in court mindset. It's what people are wondering? 
I don't know how they can be so proud of winning with them odds. - Little Big Man

I Love You...Poppin Fresh

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 19685
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Colin Kaepernick
« Reply #479 on: November 20, 2017, 12:05:55 PM »
How do you expect to prove that. "I didn't kill him because he's a filthy, stinking Belgian. I killed him because of the way he looked at me." You posted examples of increased penalties based on the class of the victim, but only one of them (murder for hire) seems to involve intent in the way we're using it. I think there's probably a good reason for that.

I posted the examples simply to prove that there are different penalties for different crimes in respect to murder/homicide.  Some directly related to an attribute of the victim. 

But I'm not really sure what you are suggesting here.  Should we not take intent into account?  Are we not able to prove intent?
We prove intent the same way we prove it with any other crime.  If intent can be proven, and the law allows for a different punishment due to that intent, so be it.
If it cant, then so be it.

I do not think there should be an extra penalty if simply the victim is black.  If they were killed BECAUSE they were black, and it can be clearly proven, i see no issue with the extra penalties.

If youre asking how we prove that someone killed another because of race, well that is another discussion me thinks.
Your examples all referred to different crimes because of the victim's class rather than the badguy's intent, which ironically we all seem to disagree with as it pertains to race. Killing somebody because he's a cop isn't a different crime than just killing somebody who happened to be a cop. To answer your question, I think the suspect's motivation is something better taken into account when figuring out punishment. Such a thing would make somebody more or less of an asshole in the eyes of a jury.

And I have to ask, what's the benefit of what you're proposing? Why should we be treating "I killed him because he's black" any differently than "I killed him because he's a dick?"

You know this is my question, Why does one shoot to kill rather than apprehend the suspect? Doesn't it make the job a bit easier if you can question the suspect, of his actions and intent? Learn why he did it then apply that to future scenarios.

By shooting the suspect, likely killing them, it sends a message of, they're low-life, rather one off the streets then dealing with them in court mindset. It's what people are wondering?
Since Garner (1985) all police shootings are ostensibly about self defense; not apprehension. You don't get to ask a bad guy any questions or investigate his actions if you're dead. Despite the fact that the laws governing police shootings are non-existent in practice, the mindset remains the same. "I was so fearful for my safety that I had no choice but to shoot him. How did I know he wasn't running back to his car to fetch a bazooka?" still qualifies as self defense, bullshit though it may be.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 11021
  • Gender: Male
Re: Colin Kaepernick
« Reply #480 on: November 20, 2017, 02:52:09 PM »
If you want to declare shitty roommates a protected class deserving of hate crime protection then I'll go along with charging her. All we have now is an assumption based on the fact that the offender is white and the victim Jamaican.

And from a pure logic perspective slippery slopes are fallacies. In the legal world not so much. The second the landscape shifts lawyers run wild in every direction they can to explore its newfound limits.

BULL'S EYE.  Where every case is literally a brick in the legal foundation of the next case, and fair game for attorney's to cite in their defense (they get little of the court room right, but Barba on Law and Order standing in front of a judge and saying "But your honor, in U.S. v. PumpkinPie, the court held..." is one of them).

Most of law school is studying the "slippery slope".   First it was asbestos; people cried "slippery slope!" and it was pooh-poohed... until tobacco.   People cried, others pooh-poohed, and now we're seeing gun manufacturers being sued.  Next up, after appropriate crying and pooh-poohing?   Pharma.