Hate crime for assault on opposing team fans??

[simplyputsi 0]

I'm dead serious with this. I hardly ever venture in here, but I want to know what people think of this.

I think that they should make it LAW that if you assault someone because they are an opposing fan of a sports team you don't like it should be a hate crime. This would probably of most benefit to the college teams as I don't know how many times I hear of some opposing fan getting beat down because he did not agree that the other team was the best.

Now sure the drunken fights that break out in the stands because some fan of your team is being obnoxious and you want him to just shut up could become considered a hate crime. I guess though that when put before a judge if you admitted you are a fan of the same team that could be dismissed. I wonder how many people would disown their teams though?

Anyway, anyone ever heard of something like this. If you think about it, assaulting someone because they are not like you, and don't like the things you like, is pretty much the definition of a hate crime, is it not?

Skymama's #2 stalker -

[Royd 0]

It's already a crime. Why would you beat someone's ass who you liked and agreed with?

[okalb 78]

I am totally opposed to hate crime legislation. It makes no sense to me and it is redundant. If beating someone up is against the law, prosecute them for beating someone up. Why should it be "more" against the law because of why they did it or what they were thinking about when they did it. We already have too many useless laws!

Time flies like an arrow....fruit flies like a banana

[mnealtx 0]

+1

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[AWL71 0]

Quote

I am totally opposed to hate crime legislation. It makes no sense to me and it is redundant. If beating someone up is against the law, prosecute them for beating someone up. Why should it be "more" against the law because of why they did it or what they were thinking about when they did it. We already have too many useless laws!

I couldn't agree more. We have too many useless laws on the book. If someone assaults another person then that is a crime regardless of their motivation for doling out the beating.

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

[simplyputsi 0]

Quote

I am totally opposed to hate crime legislation. It makes no sense to me and it is redundant. If beating someone up is against the law, prosecute them for beating someone up. Why should it be "more" against the law because of why they did it or what they were thinking about when they did it. We already have too many useless laws!

It would make it a more severe crime is what I'm trying to get at.

I do get the other statement about why would you beat someone up for agreeing with you. What i'm saying is that fans attack other fans simply because that fan doesn't like their team. You don't think that is ridiculous?? Reminds me of a radio station here in GA. They sent an intern to the UGA campus wearing GA Tech stuff. The audio from that was pretty amazing. The students there were fully ready to beat his ass for wearing another schools clothes. He didn't even say anything to them.

I think it would make people think twice about getting into some stupid fight over a friggen team. Right now, you get arrested, slapped with a small charge if any and you are on your way. If you had to answer to charges of a hate crime you'd probably think it wasn't a good idea to get into a fight.

Skymama's #2 stalker -

[rushmc 18]

Hate crimes are crap.

Example, you child is beaten near to death by another of the same race or color. The attacker gets say 3 years in prison.

Your friends child is beat near to death by another of a different race or color. It is called a hate crime and the attacker gets 15 years.

Is your freinds childs health and well being worth more than yours?

A crime is a crime. Hate crimes legislation is nothing more than the PC crowd trying to feel better about themselves.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[AWL71 0]

The jails in this country are overflowing as it is. It makes no sense to add an additional 5 years to a sentence because a UGA fan and a GA Tech fan comes to blows. I would not consider it a hate crime but a stupid crime.

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

[simplyputsi 0]

the problem with hate crimes is that it is very situational.
I don't think they are useless. When an actual hate crime happens it puts a more severe penalty on the person.
Just as in your example. Someone can get only 3 years. However just because someone is of a different race/color doesn't make it a hate crime. A lawyer may take that path and make it into that.

Since no one seems to like the hate crime word than fine.
How about if you assault another opposing team fan because you just don't like their team it's not a hate crime but it carries a standard felony assault charge.
Of course the morons that do such assaults probably don't care about a felony charge.

Skymama's #2 stalker -

[okalb 78]

Quote

It would make it a more severe crime is what I'm trying to get at.

And I say again, it is illegal to assault someone and why should it be any more illegal because of why they did it. Who should decide what is a good reason and what is a bad reason to assault someone. Some think beating up Red Sox fans is a great idea. Others thing beating homosexuals is a great idea. Personally I don't care why you commit a crime. You should be prosecuted for the crime you committed not what you were thinking when you did it.

Quote

You don't think that is ridiculous??

Of course it is and you should be prosecuted for it.

Quote

I think it would make people think twice about getting into some stupid fight over a friggen team.

Who are you to decide what is a good reason and what is a bad reason to assault someone. The crime is assault and should be prosecuted as assault. If they prosecute every assault case that someone commits at a ball game, that should be a deterrent to stop people from fighting at ball games. Makes no difference if it was because I hate your team or because you looked at my girlfriend's ass.

Time flies like an arrow....fruit flies like a banana

[rushmc 18]

Quote

the problem with hate crimes is that it is very situational.
I don't think they are useless. When an actual hate crime happens it puts a more severe penalty on the person.
Just as in your example. Someone can get only 3 years. However just because someone is of a different race/color doesn't make it a hate crime. A lawyer may take that path and make it into that.

Since no one seems to like the hate crime word than fine.
How about if you assault another opposing team fan because you just don't like their team it's not a hate crime but it carries a standard felony assault charge.
Of course the morons that do such assaults probably don't care about a felony charge.

So, you are saying that ones health or welfare is worth more than another? Just because the attacker can be said to commited the crime out of hate? What about a couple that is splitting up. One beats the other. Should this be a hate crime?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rehmwa 2]

"Hate crimes" are idiotic.

If legislators think that the penalty for assault is too weak to be effective, then they need to jack up the penalty for assault. Not just jack it up for subjective scenarios designed merely to pander to special interest groups.

Assault is a crime. Assault + hate crime penalty is politics.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

"Hate crimes" are idiotic.

If legislators think that the penalty for assault is too weak to be effective, then they need to jack up the penalty for assault. Not just jack it up for subjective scenarios designed merely to pander to special interest groups.

Assault is a crime. Assault + hate crime penalty is politics.

+1 +1 +1 +1 +1

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[warpedskydiver 0]

According to Rahm Emmanuel (D) IL, the reason we need hate crime laws is due to the fact the police do not care if gays blacks or hispanics have violence committed upon them he also went on to suggest that the police approve of these actions.

I guess he forgets that not all cops are white, in fact they are not the majority in many departments.

[Butters 0]

Quote

"Hate crimes" are idiotic.

If legislators think that the penalty for assault is too weak to be effective, then they need to jack up the penalty for assault. Not just jack it up for subjective scenarios designed merely to pander to special interest groups.

Assault is a crime. Assault + hate crime penalty is politics.

Hate crimes are a way to legislate your thoughts with your actions. It is a precursor to legislating your thoughts by themselves.

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[simplyputsi 0]

Quote

So, you are saying that ones health or welfare is worth more than another? Just because the attacker can be said to commited the crime out of hate? What about a couple that is splitting up. One beats the other. Should this be a hate crime?

That is not a hate crime. It may be done out of hate, but you beat the person because you were mad at them, not because they were different from you.
And no, ones health or welfare is not worth more than another. A crime is a crime, but there are severities to them. I throw a rock at you because your a dick, not too big of a deal. I shoot you because your a dick and well that is a bit different.

Getting in a fight with someone because they looked at your girlfriends ass, or some other stupid reason is really no comparison to wanting to attack someone because they like another team.
Although they both involve stupidity, one of them involves a predisposition of hate towards a group.

It's really no different than why road rage is now considered a higher crime than simply getting in a fight. Why do they have degrees of murder than?? Murder is murder according to your reasoning.

Skymama's #2 stalker -

[yjumpinoz 0]

I think that it is similar to the temporarily insane plea. Of course you were out of your mind during the killing. It is still murder.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Although they both involve stupidity, one of them involves a predisposition of hate towards a group.

the only reason this makes any sense is the point that predisposition towards a group, rather than an individual, indicates an increased possibility of repeating the crime in the future - thus making the attacker a larger threat to individuals in society. His crime is generic so he has more temptation to repeat it on his "target rich" environment. But, the concept "assumes" a particular mental profile of the attacker that should be done on a case basis, not just assumed.

I can use the above justification also for assaults by: union workers on the random picket line crosser; thieves on passing pedestrians; any type of drunken bar fight; attacks on people wearing nice watches; etc. Extend the list, and some will qualify as hate crimes, most will not. So the above discussion cannot be a rationalization for the purely non-rational and political pandering that approves of hate crime legislation.

However, to only consider this one contributor to the potential towards repeats is purely political. As there are MANY possible contributors to the aspect of repeat crimes in justice. The term itself: "Hate" crime, rather than something more accurate clearly denotes that this is not a rational set of law, but a purely political one.

We need to make the punishment for the act of an individual to be severe enough, that the focus is on the act, not the justification. Then, ALL the criminal's justifications should be considered on a case basis to determine the possibility and extent of his willingness to repeat the crime.

IMO - incarceration, to me, is mainly to avoid future crimes by the same person ("punishment" for what they already did is the least consideration and can be considered as a demonstration of potential to repeat the crime) - they've demonstrated the ability to damage society again - I don't care about their why's, I care about the other 6 billion potential victims that didn't commit a crime. Their ability to repeat the offense is primary in determining their sentence.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[simplyputsi 0]

seems you have some sort of beef with political issues.

You do realize laws are political, all of them??

Predisposition does increase the possibility of repeating the crime, but it also gives a person intent to attack someone without provocation. Your examples are just, but they really are not the same. A drunken bar fight, you didn't walk into the bar going I hate those people that sit on the stools, i'm gonna kick their ass. Now if you did, that could certainly be similar. Thieves, ummm that is just it, they are stealing something, totally different.

If you don't think so fine. You want to see how clearly hateful some people can be without even knowing you, put on an opposing college teams colors and clothes and go to a game of the home team. Sit with the home crowd and I would be surprised if you make it out without being at least pushed. Well if you are a girl, you'll probably only get heckled.

And for the love, fine drop the hate crime bit, but make it at least a more harsh punishment to blindly attack someone for liking another team.

Skymama's #2 stalker -

[rehmwa 2]

mmmm, beef


an you have some sort of beef with spectator sports? It is served in tailgate parties to great effect. In fact, if I was full of steak, I'd be too happy and content, and a little sleepy, to attack that other guy with the different colored jersey. Solution? Beef for all. Paid with taxes.


1 - "more harsh punishment to blindly attack someone for liking another team" if people are idiotic enough to let their sports team advocacy drive them to attack someone, it's less of a hate crime and more of an idiot crime. Put them in jail for assault, but maybe they should be sterilized for the sake of the next generation - they don't have a life anyway. People can hate and be hateful all they want, but when they cross the line to assault, then that's the crime - assault. Not the hate, but the act.

I don't advocate thought control - only responsibility for one's actions.

2 - "You do realize laws are political, all of them" if you don't see the difference between justice and politics abusing the concept of justice, then I can't help you. Think of it this way. There's "politics "

I'm here to help.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I hate those people that sit on the stools, i'm gonna kick their ass.

"I'm drunk, I'm gonna kick the next stool sitter's ass"

seems random and impersonal, and this person is likely to do it again

how about "I'm drunk, I'm gonna kick the next brown stool sitter's ass"?

tell me how that's different - the crime is the ass kicking (pasty white or brown or pink) that follows, not the mumbling before

It seems to me that you "get it" very clearly, it's just that you're mad because you got pushed at last week's Mich St/Wisconsin game. And the desire for special laws for personal reasons is really contrary to an objective justice system. Justice cannot be turned into a personal revenge system.

Maybe you'd have been better posting in the "things that bug me" thread in the Bonfire

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[simplyputsi 0]

No, I don't go to college games.

Sure the crime is assault any way you look at it, but if you did it because that person sits on stools and you don't, and you did it strictly because of that, there IS a difference.

yet again, why are there degrees of murder?? There are degrees to assault, what I'm saying is that your stupidity towards another team should get you and elevated assault charge.

I have no personal revenge issues.
The issue I have is, for example, the UGA fan that was beat to death by 4 Florida fans, who I believe were never apprehended because all the "fans" around were happy to see the UGA fan beaten. Nevermind 4 guys kicked him in the head repeatedly and ran off. That right there is far beyond assault, in this case it was murder, but what if the guy just ended up in a coma, they get an assault charge, probably not attempted murder because according to you it was just a fight between people that disagree.

But what if, what if, by chance it is known that fighting with an opposing teams fan can land you in jail with a felony charge at the minimum. Maybe then you get the pack of 4 guys that want to beat on a opposing fan to think twice.

My example is just that, an example. I don't care for either team, don't care for any college team. I care for one professional team and I have seen fans get in fights at the games I've gone to for simply saying your team sucks.

Sounds like you would like to go to the system of eye for an eye. The reason that system is not largely in force is because there are severities to crimes. I'm saying maybe, just maybe they need to make it a more severe crime, thus higher penalty.

Sorry for having a new look on a growing problem in this country, well every country.

Skymama's #2 stalker -

[1969912 0]

Quote

I think that they should make it LAW that if you assault someone because they are an opposing fan of a sports team you don't like it should be a hate crime.

--------
Assume that there is a football game between team A and team B. Team B wins the game, and afterwards in the parking lot a group of ten people attack another group of ten people causing serious injuries to all ten. The ten who initiated the attack are all arrested in the parking lot.

What happens next? The police question the assailants in the presence of their attorneys, who all admit to the crime. Because the assaults occurred in the parking lot after a game, the assailants are also asked which team they were fans of. They all answer "Team B"

Meanwhile, at the hospital, the victims are questioned. When asked which team they were fans of they all answer "Team A".

Back at the police department interview notes are discussed. Ten "Team B's" attacked ten "Team A's", it's clearly a "hate crime".
--------


Simplyputsi,

Lacking any other information, would the above constitute a "hate crime" in your opinion?

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Back at the police department interview notes are discussed. Ten "Team B's" attacked ten "Team A's", it's clearly a "hate crime".

Clearly.

I never understood why using racial or sexuality slurs during an assault leads to a whole new set of charges, while profanity,..i.e. Asshole, Mother Fucker, Son of a Bitch is okay.

Remember when Jaws called Apollo Creed "Hey Blackie" in Force 10 from Navarone? Technically a hate crime. Go figure.

[simplyputsi 0]

Nope.

I would have to say most hate crimes are not initially booked as such.
It would never be a cut a dry situation. In your case, it would at least be a starting point to ask more questions. What started the fight?? If you get both groups saying that they said our team sucked, well then you've got a case of morons, and like I said like ten million times now, maybe it shouldn't be a HATE crime, but rather carry a heavier punishment.

Skymama's #2 stalker -