Kentucky Passes 'Blue Lives Matter' Law making it hate crime to attack cops
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 04:10:07 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Kentucky Passes 'Blue Lives Matter' Law making it hate crime to attack cops
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: Kentucky Passes 'Blue Lives Matter' Law making it hate crime to attack cops  (Read 2562 times)
Classic Conservative
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,628


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: March 22, 2017, 04:43:09 PM »

https://mobile.twitter.com/WSJ/status/844665031019114496
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,135
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: March 22, 2017, 04:52:41 PM »

     Hate crimes shouldn't be a category in general. Besides, most jurisdictions already have stiffer penalties for attacking police officers. I admire the sentiment, but I don't see this as being necessary.
Logged
Gass3268
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,478
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: March 22, 2017, 04:59:46 PM »

There already are extra protections and laws surrounding the police. This is excessive and unnecessary.
Logged
Virginiá
Virginia
Administratrix
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,856
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.97, S: -5.91

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: March 22, 2017, 08:11:25 PM »

How ridiculously stupid. As other(s) here said, there are already other laws for attacking police. Further, just because someone may resist arrest and in the process hit a cop, does not mean they hate the cop. Consider someone being arrested for a murder they did not commit - they know they didn't do it, and perhaps they react violently and attack the cop. That is not hate, it's a reflexive desire to not get put in a cage for the rest of their life.

What about if two people get into a fight and the person does not know the other is a police officer - would that still qualify here?

These kinds of "red meat" bills are just as bad as what some Democrats do with gun control. Just write dumb laws that often don't solve anything, or perhaps even cause more problems, all to feed their base and give them the ability to say they did something.
Logged
Sprouts Farmers Market ✘
Sprouts
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,751
Italy


Political Matrix
E: -4.90, S: 1.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: March 22, 2017, 08:19:55 PM »

Yes because attacking a cop (i.e., especially as a form of resistance) is likely to mean that a person will do that again Roll Eyes
Logged
Green Line
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,584
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: March 22, 2017, 08:21:18 PM »

A lot of people certainly hate the police, and say it proudly.  Sounds like hate to me.
Logged
Vcrew192
Rookie
**
Posts: 45
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: March 22, 2017, 08:25:06 PM »

How ridiculously stupid. As other(s) here said, there are already other laws for attacking police. Further, just because someone may resist arrest and in the process hit a cop, does not mean they hate the cop. Consider someone being arrested for a murder they did not commit - they know they didn't do it, and perhaps they react violently and attack the cop. That is not hate, it's a reflexive desire to not get put in a cage for the rest of their life.

What about if two people get into a fight and the person does not know the other is a police officer - would that still qualify here?

These kinds of "red meat" bills are just as bad as what some Democrats do with gun control. Just write dumb laws that often don't solve anything, or perhaps even cause more problems, all to feed their base and give them the ability to say they did something.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/politics/ky-general-assembly/2017/02/08/panel-approves-making-attack-first-responder-hate-crime/97650368/

The law makes attacking a police officer simply because he is a police officer a hate crime. Under current hate crime law, if I get in a fight with a black person and he dies I would be guilty of murder but not a hate crime because I wasn't motivated by a hatred of black people. I just wanted to kill this one black person.

In the situation you described, the perpetrator didn't have a hatred of police officers so therefore he would only be guilty of assaulting that one officer and not of a hate crime. This law is meant to apply to situations like the Dallas shooting where police were targeted simply because the perpetrator had a hatred for police.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,843
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: March 22, 2017, 11:13:57 PM »

Do we have a hate crimes statute for attacking people for having 'noble' professions?

Many criminals think it acceptable to attack and even kill people for being prostitutes. Should we have a hate crimes statute for that?

Ethnicity, race, religion, handicap, social class, and gender identity might be cause to have protections against crimes directed at people for what they are. Genocide and genocide-like crimes are the definitive hate crimes, and the path to those crimes begins with smaller-scale hate crimes.

Hate crimes statutes are ordinarily leveled at crimes less egregious than murder.  I can see how "Class of '20" or "Eddie + Susan 4ever" as graffiti are much less troublesome than a swastika or Nazi slogans daubed on 'Temple Beth Shalom'. "Off a Pig Today" on a cop's property? Interesting comparison. 
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,806


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: March 22, 2017, 11:17:07 PM »

If this includes reactive stuff like resisting arrest, then it's your typical heinous Republican law. Otherwise I don't have too much of a problem with it. Once we opened up the unnecessary can of worms that is "hate crimes", it is just going to be applied to any politically protected group. It would be best if we got rid of hate crimes altogether, and just had regular crimes.
Logged
Ebowed
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,597


Political Matrix
E: 4.13, S: 2.09

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: March 22, 2017, 11:27:20 PM »

How trite.  Wake me when they start prosecuting police for killing innocent people.
Logged
courts
Ghost_white
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,466
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: March 22, 2017, 11:28:17 PM »

good for kentucky
Logged
Santander
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,854
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: 4.00, S: 2.61


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: March 22, 2017, 11:41:40 PM »

Proof it's the best state in America.
Logged
Virginiá
Virginia
Administratrix
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,856
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.97, S: -5.91

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: March 22, 2017, 11:47:31 PM »

The law makes attacking a police officer simply because he is a police officer a hate crime. Under current hate crime law, if I get in a fight with a black person and he dies I would be guilty of murder but not a hate crime because I wasn't motivated by a hatred of black people. I just wanted to kill this one black person.

How would they prove the person hated police, or attacked them just for being a police officer? Aside from the person straight up confessing that, if they were to go through the person's Facebook account and see images making fun of police, would that be considered? These are some of the things I wonder about with a law like this. Police are authority figures, and many people generally have problems with authority but that doesn't necessarily mean they hate cops.

Either way, it's still unnecessary. Assault on an officer is a felony in all/most states afaik, so I don't understand what they are trying to do here. Given the already-serious nature of such a crime, piling on or upgrading charges isn't really going to help the situation.
Logged
TDAS04
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,475
Bhutan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: March 23, 2017, 01:34:53 AM »

Sounds pretty dumb.
Logged
Xing
xingkerui
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,303
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.52, S: -3.91

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: March 23, 2017, 01:49:19 AM »

This is dumb, and clearly just a way for some people to metaphorically say "F*** YOU, BLACK (lives matter) PEOPLE!"
Logged
This Has Only Just Begun
Crimson King
Rookie
**
Posts: 32
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: March 23, 2017, 02:21:22 AM »
« Edited: March 23, 2017, 02:51:41 AM by Crimson King »

How ridiculously stupid. As other(s) here said, there are already other laws for attacking police. Further, just because someone may resist arrest and in the process hit a cop, does not mean they hate the cop. Consider someone being arrested for a murder they did not commit - they know they didn't do it, and perhaps they react violently and attack the cop. That is not hate, it's a reflexive desire to not get put in a cage for the rest of their life.

What about if two people get into a fight and the person does not know the other is a police officer - would that still qualify here?

These kinds of "red meat" bills are just as bad as what some Democrats do with gun control. Just write dumb laws that often don't solve anything, or perhaps even cause more problems, all to feed their base and give them the ability to say they did something.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/politics/ky-general-assembly/2017/02/08/panel-approves-making-attack-first-responder-hate-crime/97650368/

The law makes attacking a police officer simply because he is a police officer a hate crime. Under current hate crime law, if I get in a fight with a black person and he dies I would be guilty of murder but not a hate crime because I wasn't motivated by a hatred of black people. I just wanted to kill this one black person.

In the situation you described, the perpetrator didn't have a hatred of police officers so therefore he would only be guilty of assaulting that one officer and not of a hate crime. This law is meant to apply to situations like the Dallas shooting where police were targeted simply because the perpetrator had a hatred for police.

Not to be a dick but you got a yellow avatar bro.  Shouldn't your argument be against this because "hate crime" legislation explicitly implies that there are many cases where "murder" isn't a "hate crime"?

And in any case, yeah this is excessive.  You bring up Dallas without considering that Micah Xavier Johnson died in the exchange with police (by a police robot, the first instance in US History), right?  Chances are that unless it is a hit and run most suspects who kill a cop due to a hatred of cops will likely end up getting gunned down themselves.  Shooting a cop in a lot of instances IS a Death Sentence (thus the phrase "SHOOT TO KILL!" you see in a lot of 80's action flicks), and why shouldn't it be?  If you shoot at people who are ARMED it's a pretty safe assumption they are ready to fire back at you.  This is just a safe assumption because a lot of cops generally work in areas where there are other cops or they at least have radio and bodycam communications established.  Anybody who doesn't get gunned down by policemen (whether in self-defense or vengeance) will then likely get a very stiff prison sentence.

My thoughts on this is that there probably is a place for this sort of legislation, but it should cover hatred of somebody for their occupation.  Hate Crime legislation should, in my opinion, be as wide and as non-preferential as possible.  What matters is intent (the hatred), not what group of people was targeted.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,843
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: March 23, 2017, 02:33:35 AM »

I know that hate crimes are a thing because of the racists, but I wonder why a racist killer can't just go to jail for murder, rather than getting an extra 5 years because he's racist. I also wonder why the murderer Dylann Roof stood in front of a Federal jury instead of a state jury, considering he did not commit his crime on Federal property.

The idea that the Federal government should step in because the crime was done for racist reasons seemingly violates the Constitution. I really wonder if the Supreme Court would agree with me. Think about it for a few seconds, and you might.

Hate crimes legislation is appropriate for augmenting what is usually a misdemeanor (like vandalism) into a felony. If someone sprays swastikas and neo-Nazi slogans on my property (I'm not Jewish, but even in mistaken identity it would be a hate crime)  I would press hate-crime charges  in addition to vandalism. I might go leniently on an offender who shows contrition and begins to recognize how horrible the stuff is.  The person who has no commitment to hate groups might break if he were shown what the stuff really means.

I'd also take great offense at "off a Pig Today!" even if I am not a cop. 
Logged
This Has Only Just Begun
Crimson King
Rookie
**
Posts: 32
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: March 23, 2017, 02:46:18 AM »

I know that hate crimes are a thing because of the racists, but I wonder why a racist killer can't just go to jail for murder, rather than getting an extra 5 years because he's racist. I also wonder why the murderer Dylann Roof stood in front of a Federal jury instead of a state jury, considering he did not commit his crime on Federal property.

The idea that the Federal government should step in because the crime was done for racist reasons seemingly violates the Constitution. I really wonder if the Supreme Court would agree with me. Think about it for a few seconds, and you might.

Hate crimes legislation is appropriate for augmenting what is usually a misdemeanor (like vandalism) into a felony. If someone sprays swastikas and neo-Nazi slogans on my property (I'm not Jewish, but even in mistaken identity it would be a hate crime)  I would press hate-crime charges  in addition to vandalism. I might go leniently on an offender who shows contrition and begins to recognize how horrible the stuff is.  The person who has no commitment to hate groups might break if he were shown what the stuff really means.

I'd also take great offense at "off a Pig Today!" even if I am not a cop. 

That is a fair enough point.  I was mostly addressing Vcrew192's example of the Dallas shooting.  I really think that "Hate Crime" legislation should be more of a general "one size fits all" sort of thing and not just have one for minorities, have one for cops, etc. etc. etc..  Your example of the swastika is a pretty good example of in general what should be considered a hateful violation of a person's property.

I guess my point was that murdering a police officer for whatever reason is already given severe enough penalties compared to other murders to effectively be a "hate crime".
Logged
Higgs
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,581


Political Matrix
E: 6.14, S: -4.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: March 23, 2017, 10:51:20 AM »
« Edited: March 23, 2017, 11:06:09 AM by Higgs »

The law makes attacking a police officer simply because he is a police officer a hate crime. Under current hate crime law, if I get in a fight with a black person and he dies I would be guilty of murder but not a hate crime because I wasn't motivated by a hatred of black people. I just wanted to kill this one black person.

How would they prove the person hated police, or attacked them just for being a police officer? Aside from the person straight up confessing that, if they were to go through the person's Facebook account and see images making fun of police, would that be considered? These are some of the things I wonder about with a law like this. Police are authority figures, and many people generally have problems with authority but that doesn't necessarily mean they hate cops.

Either way, it's still unnecessary. Assault on an officer is a felony in all/most states afaik, so I don't understand what they are trying to do here. Given the already-serious nature of such a crime, piling on or upgrading charges isn't really going to help the situation.

You could use these same arguments against hate crime legislation in general.

"How would they prove the person hated police, or attacked them just for being a police officer?"

I don't see how proving this would be any different than proving hatred in a hate crime case regarding race.

"Given the already serious nature of such a crime, piling on or upgrading charges isn't really going to help the situation."

I'm not sure what you mean by "help the situation". If you're against hate crime legislation then I understand adding charges further than 'murder' or 'assault' is pointless. But if you support hate crime legislation then don't you agree there should be further charges because it was done in the name of hate?

Are you arguing against hate crime legislation in general, or do you really think that hatred towards the police couldn't be a motive for some crimes?
Logged
SUSAN CRUSHBONE
evergreen
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,735
Antarctica


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: March 23, 2017, 11:02:20 AM »

if they're gonna class attacking terrorists for beďng terrorists as a hate crime, it should apply to all terrorists
Logged
Sprouts Farmers Market ✘
Sprouts
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,751
Italy


Political Matrix
E: -4.90, S: 1.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: March 23, 2017, 11:13:31 AM »

If this includes reactive stuff like resisting arrest, then it's your typical heinous Republican law. Otherwise I don't have too much of a problem with it. Once we opened up the unnecessary can of worms that is "hate crimes", it is just going to be applied to any politically protected group. It would be best if we got rid of hate crimes altogether, and just had regular crimes.

Pathetic and cowardly. If there is any purpose for social liberalism, it should be to uphold monumental protections like hate crime laws and applying them justly.
Logged
Suburbia
bronz4141
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,684
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: March 23, 2017, 11:26:42 AM »

A lot of people certainly hate the police, and say it proudly.  Sounds like hate to me.
Logged
SUSAN CRUSHBONE
evergreen
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,735
Antarctica


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: March 23, 2017, 11:29:50 AM »

A lot of people certainly hate the police, and say it proudly.  Sounds like hate to me.

this applies to other kinds of terrorists too, so…
Logged
The Dowager Mod
texasgurl
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,973
United States


Political Matrix
E: -9.48, S: -8.57

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: March 23, 2017, 11:46:24 AM »

How trite.  Wake me when they start prosecuting police for killing innocent people.
Logged
Bojack Horseman
Wolverine22
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,368
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: March 23, 2017, 11:49:04 AM »

"Blue lives matter" is a racist joke of a slogan anyway.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.057 seconds with 13 queries.