hahahahahahahaha, lmao here, he was heckling and harassing them and couldn't get any, and now he's in jail where he's gonna get some just desserts not of his likings.

hahahahahaha a male douch-bag got whipped by a woman.

hahahaha i agree

whooshie boy better stick to beating up toyotas

deleted...

Not all women are weak, tiny little things. He may have been a smaller guy or the woman may have had a wrestling/martial arts background. You'd be surprised. Can't say he didn't deserve it though.

I think he is going to somebody's biyatch in the prison

Guess he's going to be on the receiving end of a homosexual relationship. So much for being anti-gay!

"Got whooped by a girl and he liked it"

The headline is misleading. She didn't tackle him because he was heckling them, she tackled him because he @!$%#ing attacked them. This isn't some cutsie puff piece, this is an article about an assault.

What an idiot. Not only did he get beat up by a girl and get arrested, he's got a hate crime on his record. Good luck getting a job smart guy.

Hot-in-Miami is right too. The one that beat him up might not be so "feminine". I'm a big guy and I've seen a few gay women I would not tangle with. Kudos to the ladies for not taking sh** from this stupid waste of oxygen.

I would have loved to have been there to see that...you go girl!

It's good to see where someone can really defend themselves...

Only charged for harassment? What about the woman's car window!?!?!?! There should definitely be a charge for vandalism or destruction of property or something added to the list. Threatening them or coming at them in a "threatening manner" can be subject to interpretation. Smashing someone's window is a physical act that leaves evidence. That should be a slam dunk charge! Why did they not include it?

Go, Woman power!

I just love it when bigots like you practice selective reading and conveniently ignore the PART WHERE HE SMASHED THEIR CAR. I am sure you would love part if part of your so-called free speech to include attacking, beating and killing homosexuals, but thankfully, if you do that now, you'll be charged with a hate crime. As you should be.

PS.The so-called free speech only involves the government and not private persons and organization.

Ryan, I'm sure if someone smashed in your car window for hugging, they would be in jail too... Perhaps only you should be protected from criminals?

By the way, there were 21 anti-heterosexual hate crimes prosecuted in 2010. How much was the bet? The only problem I guess you have with it is that there are less hate crimes perpetuated against strait people for hugging in public, but yes people do get convicted for hate crimes against rich straight white males. I'm guessing you aren't up in arms against that.

I'm confused here. That church in FL travels around to funerals of Dead military personnel, and can yell insults at the mourners, and THAT is freedom of speech. Now this man makes comments to two lesbians, and one of them ASSAULTS him, and HE gets arrested. I don't get that at all.

Janine - from you comment (#1.19) it appears that you either did not read the article, or you are being deliberately obtuse to stir the pot. Either way, pretty lame.

As for the story, I think this young man's victims taught him a more effective lesson than the judicial system could ever hope to. Ya just gotta love poetic justice.

Speech doesn't cover smashing in windows and threatening more violence.

Last I checked smashing a window and advancing threateningly was more than just harrassment.

Ryan - anti-gay slurs in the context of this incident (i.e. aggressive and violent harassment) do not qualify as free speech. Not even close, dude. This moron was drunk, violent (smashing a car window) and persistent in his harassment of these women. It's pretty cut and dried, and I'm afraid no amount of dubious claims and circuitous logic can change that.

Hey Ryan.

That BS may play there in Texas, but here in America we see things differently. You seem to be challenged as to what a 'hate crime' is. If I 'don't like your face' and start calling you names, everyone knows I'm drunk and an idiot. If we mix it up and I get arrested. I get arrested for assault because there's no law against being an idiot (breathe a sigh of relief).

However, if I start calling a black person the N-word, If I see someone in religious garb (priest's robe, skull cap, veil) and start yelling religious slurs OR if I call out same sex couples for hugging--Then I am guilty of a hate crime. The example you give of protesting and/or calling names based on political/social views, is something completely different.

Let's say you moved to a neighborhood where the majority of residents were of a different race than you. Are you really saying you support the right of your neighbors to call you names and harass you, day and night, based entirely on your race? You are saying that this doesn't differ from an organized political protest in any way?

Go read the 'hate crime' laws. In a lot of states, Gays had to be added to the groups as an afterthought. You say this is all about Gays wanting special rights, but the 'hate crimes' laws were on the books long before gays were included. The original hate crime laws were about burning crosses on lawns and Swastikas on Synagogues. As society evolved, we saw that there are complete idiots (we aren't naming names) who think they can hate people based, not just on their skin color but on their vision of God or who they hold in their arms at night. I know it sounds incredible, but some people are THAT stupid.

As for your other specious arguments: While I side with the born, (women's right to control their bodies) it isn't that I'm blind to legitimate moral questions on the other side of the argument. I'm not 100%. I'm closer to 60/40. I may disagree, but I see and respect the legitimacy of the other side. My big question is: Why would you drag such an important issue into a discussion of Gays and hate crimes? Are you trying to say that an aborted foetus is equivalent to a Toyota window? I would have to sharply disagree with you there, no matter what my position on women's rights may be.

Your argument is exactly equivalent to "How can we have littering laws when there is war in the world?"

Easy!

It's because we have littering laws 'over here', and war 'over there', and gay rights 'over here', and YOU over in Texas.

drunk in public, distruction of property, and stupid sure guilty, but this story does not give enough facts to determine if these actions warrant hate crime status. Grow up people.

drunk in public, distruction of property, and stupid . . .

. . . while yelling anti-gay slurs and aggressively advancing on ones victim(s) = hate crime status. It's a pretty simple equation - even for us apparently non-grown-ups.

you have to ignore the comments of people like Ryan and Janine. Trolls feed on responses. When you respond to them, they just get encouraged to write even more.

Remember, "PLEASE DON'T FEED THE TROLLS"

A "hate crime" is a hard one to define, apparently. Queer Nation and Act Up invaded St. Patrick's Cathedral in NYC 20 years ago and interrupted a religious service screaming insults. In San Francisco, the City Council condemned the Catholic Church for its doctine on homosexuality (as if it's not the same as Orthodox Jews, Eastern Orthodox Christians, Evangelicals, Muslims, Mormons, etc). There is a yearly parade in San Francisco, approved by the City Council,that ridicules the Catholic Church by people dressing as the pope or bishops or the nuns "of Perpetual Indulgence" in a feast of vulgarity. In Los Angeles, the City Council, spurred on by a lesbian member, condemned a meeting of scientists who were discussing whether it was possible to change homosexual orientation or not, and the scientists were run out of the Bonaventure Hotel (shades of Fascism). In San Antonio this year the San Pedro Playhouse presented on City Property and with City funding, a play representing Jesus and the 12 apostles as foul-speaking homosexuals. The play was approved by the City Council, which refuses to answer to complaints about the abuse of the dignity and faith of the majority of the citizens using their property and tax money and that demand a vote of Censure against the Playhouse board. Another group of homosexuals is asking for a boycott of the Salvation Army because they have fought against homosexual "marriage" in various countries. Etcetera! Hate Crimes? Yes. By the way, the opposite of "gay" is "sad", and the opposite of "straight" is "crooked", unless we're using in-group Argot. Heretics anyone? Gentile anyone? Infidel anyone" There are hate crimes all the time against the weak, the ethnic or racial people, the short, the fat, the skinny, weaklings, Republicans, Democrats, Tea Partiers, etc. Who are members of the "protected groups" if the Supreme Court permits the Westboro Baptist Church of Kansas to scream "faggot" and "queer" and insult the families of dead veterans? I detest people who insult with words and discriminate others, but again, who are the "protected"? Admittedly, the drunk broke the law damaging the vehicle of the woman, but what was the hate crime? Was it the damaging combined with the slurs? --OK to that, then.

Ryan,

You just don't get it! It isn't because someone randomly calls names or breaks a window. I agree, that happens to everyone. But when you don't acknowledge that this IS NOT RANDOM but being acted upon them BECAUSE some people think they don't have to afford everyone their constitutional rights. The victims here don't have this happen a couple of times in their lives, they have it happen several times a day. They are singled out for this behavior. That's why it has nothing to do with your examples and why it is a hate crime.

Your only argument was that my examples were about harassment, which you agreed was against the law. Tell me, if there aren't specific laws to prevent cretins from acting like this, then when does it become harassment? Are you trying to tell me that you think this is the first time this ever happened to them? (Though it may now be the last) How many times a month, week, day, constitutes harassment?

There are people like you walking around. You still don't think these people get harassed?

A harassment that you agreed was illegal? RIGHT! And there's a tooth fairy too.

A "hate crime" is a hard one to define, apparently. Queer Nation and Act Up invaded St. Patrick's Cathedral in NYC 20 years ago and interrupted a religious service screaming insults. In San Francisco, the City Council condemned the Catholic Church . . .

Respectfully, GeorgeLC - all the examples you cited were missing (at least) one key element to be classified as "hate crimes" - that is, actual or threatened violence against the victim(s). You could reasonably argue that they are examples of hate speech, but such speech is constitutionally protected - regardless of how repugnant it may be to you personally.

Earlier someone posted that there were 26 hate crimes in the entire country against hetrosexuals.

Homosexuals are 1% of the populatin, and there is no evidence they are victims of crime at a greater rate than other Americans.

So by the numbers, there would be about .26 hate crimes against them a year. Or one hate crime every 4 years.

But they are nearly half of the number of hate crime "victims".

Clearly by the numbers, it's unequal protection.

If you want to be treated the same as everyone else, you have to be treated the same as everyone else.

Ryan.

Ha ha ha ha The joke's on me. I might as well argue with doorknobs.

Did it ever occur to you that maybe homosexuals might be brighter than to yell epithets at the vast majority?

That I have to point that out to you says so much more about your basis for argument than anything I could ever say. I'll stay out of this and let you demonstrate your well thought out arguments while I do something intellectual like watching paint dry. If you're not even going to try to use your brain, I'm not wasting my time. Please promise me you will never try to teach math or ethics.

He was arrested because two, likely more, gays gave the cop the same story. Probably injured hisself breaking the window and couldn't defend himself. Then they gang tackled him, pulled his hair, and beat him with items you find at lovers package. LOL

They rarely arrest for breaking a window, they might cite the dude, but they wouldn't haul him in. It was likelybecause of the altercation and the alcohol. And probably to protect the injured dude from 10 man/girls with curling tire irons.

BTW deviants in jail usually get assaulted, they don't assault. Unlikely this guy will have some freak jumping on his back in jail. If they know your a ballerina you would be as popular as a molester. He's probably the man of the hour at KC Jail with a comp pack of smokes and an autographed collection of Louis L'Amour's complete lifes work.

Ryan in Texas

Care to treat all Americans the same?

You don't.

From the title of the article, I thought this was going to be some kind of liberal 'we arrested the homophobe' crap. From reading the actual article though, the guy got his butt handed to him by a He-Woman and well deserved at that.

Name calling is one thing, but when you start getting violent and smashing windows, prepare for battle.

@Lolly1192 #1.13

Only charged for harassment? What about the woman's car window!?!?!?! There should definitely be a charge for vandalism or destruction of property or something added to the list.

When I first read this article I thought the same thing, but malicious harassment is worse than regular harassment. There are two types of charges for malicious harassment; one being a felony and this includes vandalism, and the other only being a misdemeanor (the misdemeanor one also includes vandalism), but the difference between the felony and misdeameanor is the kind of person(s) that is being harassed, meaning the felony charge includes malicious harassment against "sexual orientation". Anyway, What I originally started to say was the suspect is being charged with the vandalism of the victims vehicle.

The above article states,

Lane was booked into Whatcom County Jail on four counts including malicious harassment -- a hate crime and felony --

I thought maybe since it states he was booked on four counts, including the malicious harassment that one of the other charges would cover the vandalism so it lead me to do research which is when I learned that the malicious harassment includes the destruction to the victims vehicle.

FELONY MALICIOUS HARASSMENT RCW 9A.36.080: (Washington State Law)

"A person is guilty of felony malicious harassment if he/she maliciously and intentionally commits one of the following acts because of his/her perception of the victim’s race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, sexual orientation*, or mental, physical, or sensory handicap.
a. Causes physical injury to the victim or another person;
b. Causes physical damage to or destruction of the property of the victim or another person; or
c. Threatens a specific person or group and places that person or group in reasonable fear of harm to person or property. The fear must be a fear that a reasonable person (in the identity groups) would have under the same circumstances. Words alone do not constitute malicious harassment unless the context or circumstances surrounding the words indicate the words are a threat" Seattle.Gov (2011).

The same site I found this definition of the felony malicious harassment also includes the midemeanor charge definition, as well as states that malicious harassment is the legal term for hate crimes,which brings me to my next point.

@Ryan in Texas,

Honestly, I do not know what to say to your comments; I do think you may be misguided on what hate crimes are and who they protect, as well as malicious harassment. First, hate crimes can be cast on anyone; they do not just happen to people due to sexual orientation, race, or religion. In fact a homeless person can be a victim of a hate crime and/or malicious harassment. The Anti-Defamation League states:

The provision defined a hate crime as "a crime in which the defendant
intentionally selects a victim, or in the case of a property crime, the property
that is the object of the crime, because of the actual or perceived race, color,
religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation
of any person."

www.adl.org

The suspect in this case was not just charged of a hate crime or malicious harassment felony only because the victims are lesbians, or because he made derogatory comments about their sexual orientation. He was charged becasue his comments were made in a threatening manner, he vandalized their personal property, and he started to approach them in a threatening way. All of these actions he did are considered a felony under the malicious harassment laws and hate crime. The hate crime part comes in because he purposely targeted the victims based on their sexual orientation.

If the same suspect acted this way towards anyone else, such as a homeless person or even an elderly person he would have been charged the same way. Example: Lets say the suspect purposely targeted a homeless person or elderly solely because of their status (being homeless, or elderly) and carried on in the same manner he did in this case; all rules under hate crime and malicious harassment are still broken, therefore resulting in him being charged the same way.

I think a lot of you are missing Ryan's point. From what I am reading here, his viewpoint is that calling something a "hate crime" is unconstitutional because it adds additonal punishment onto something that is already a crime. I do see his point here.

It is also interesting how many of you blatantly attacked the man, even though his comments were not rude or obnoxious. Try learning to disagree politely, or else be quiet. Angry words only serve to escalate further anger in response.

Consider this. This drunk idiot smashed a window, verbally harassed these 2 women and acted in an aggressive and threatening manner towards them. Now, under already established law, these acts are already crimes. So, irregardless of the fact that he did it because they were lesbians...he would still be charged with a number of crimes.

So, because they are lesbians and he targeted them because they were lesbians, he will face additional punishment because it is a "hate crime" as opposed to being punished for the crimes he committed in the first place.

I do wonder at the wording of the actual legal definition of "hate crime" too. Consider this particular phrase "national origin". National origin means what country you were born in obviously. So my question would be this:

If an Irishman in a Boston bar attacks an Englishman and calls him a "dirty, stinkin Limey bast**d", does that make it a hate crime? After all, the Irishman is attacking the Englishman because he's an Englishman...therefore does it count? National origin remember? And if he was charged with a hate crime, would you agree as vehemently as so many of you have here?

I know this sounds silly on the face of it, but please consider it seriously. Remember, the law is based on the "definition" of the law. What the law SAYS is usually how the law is upheld, right or wrong. I'm sorry, but to me, the addition of "hate crime" to the laws is simply an attempt to legislate morality instead of applying the existing laws evenly across the board. Harassment is harassment. Assault is assault. Vandalism is vandalism.

The motivations behind it should be irrelevant.

The Wizard of Wisdom

I think a lot of you are missing Ryan's point. From what I am reading here, his viewpoint is that calling something a "hate crime" is unconstitutional because it adds additonal punishment onto something that is already a crime. I do see his point here.

It is also interesting how many of you blatantly attacked the man, even though his comments were not rude or obnoxious

Ryan doesn't make a point. He thinks it's okay to harm another individual because of that individual's race, color, belief, sex, age, looks, sexual orientation, etc. He thinks that's "freedom of speech." The reason why the guy in the story was arrested was because he physically attacked the two women because they're lesbians. That individual can hate lesbians (or anyone else) all he wants, but he cannot attack them for being lesbians. He smashed their car and then tried to attack them personally. That's a crime. He did it because he doesn't like it that they're lesbian. That's also a crime.

Saying what you want about somebody (just like I said that Bryan is an uneducated, intolerant, superstitious-formed bigot) is protected free speech. If I threw a brick at him for being an uneducated, intolerant, superstitious-formed bigot would not be free speech and I would have to suffer the consequences. I'm sure Bryan would agree.

You would, wouldn't you, Bryan?

And Ryan was crude and obnoxious. He says that gays/lesbians are "deviant." That's being crude and obnoxious. If I said that Ryan was a whacked-out, right-wing whacked-out, superstitious, mentally deviant person for believing that, that would be crude and obnoxious. It is true that he is, but it would still be rude and obnoxious for pointing it out.

Jerry,

So, does that excuse the others for all of their personal attacks on him in response? And what he said was "deviant sexual behavior". Inconsiderate? Yep. Crude? Perhaps. However, it was one single comment. The rest of his comments were in regards to the law.

I do find it interesting that you focus on that one little comment and completely ignore the rest of what he said. I also find it interested that you defended the hate crime appelation without a single legal or logical reason why.

If I threw a brick at him for being an uneducated, intolerant, superstitious-formed bigot would not be free speech and I would have to suffer the consequences

If you threw a brick at anyone for any reason, it wouldn't be free speech and you would suffer the consequences. So, I am asking you this question. Why, exactly, should there be a "special" additional punishment for a "hate crime"? I am not trying to be flippant or insulting or mocking here ok? I really want to know why you think "hate crimes" deserve some special kind of punishment.

If a crime is a crime (such as throwing a brick at someone, which is assault with a deadly weapon), then why is labeling it a "hate crime" necessary? Why does it tack on additional punishment? Understand, I don't like people targeting others with violent intent for ANY reason. It just seems to me that if a crime is a crime, the motivation should be irrelevant.

So, why exactly is a "hate crime" law necessary instead of simply enforcing the law?

But...

Isn't gay bashing a fundamental, right? Covered under right of protected free speech/protest? - I know it is in Texas.

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances

He was just exercising his First amendment rights. He should, so, sue them for denying him the right to be an a55 in public... how dare they open a can of Whoop a55 on him like that.

How dare they impose on his rights to pubic protest?

Ok, now that I'm done ROTFLMAO, I gotta chip in my two cents' worth on a couple points:

1) I think the guy's mouth wrote a check his a** couldn't cash, and he got what he deserved--a butt-whippin' by a girl. As a former bouncer, I wish I could've watched.

2) I find it ironic that, even though he broke a car window and was "advancing in a threatening manner", one of the girls involved took the preemptive step of tackling HIM, yet he is the one facing assault charges. If I gotta wait until someone physically puts their hands on me before I can kick their a**, then so should she. If she was capable of taking him down in the first place, she was in much less danger than many of you would ascribe to the situation.

3) Having been in jail several times, I can say with some accuracy that the chances of this guy being made someone's biyatch, especially in Whatcom County, Washington, are remote. There is a HUGE difference between jail and prison, and even in prison, that kind of stuff isn't as widespread (pun intended) as you think.

That's all I have to say. Now, I will prepeare for the inevitable attacks on my intelligence, character and morals by the uber-libs, women's rights sympathizers, formerly abused women and LGBT supporters, even though I agree with you on this.

I know you just can't help yourselves.

MissieKay -

Just look at the bias in the law you quoted:

"A person is guilty of felony malicious harassment if he/she maliciously and intentionally commits one of the following acts because of his/her perception of the victim’s race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, sexual orientation*, or mental, physical, or sensory handicap."

Clearly that doesn't apply to all Americans equally. It singles out special protection for religions, sexual orientations, and races.

It can't be called equal protection, because then they would have simply stopped before limiting it to specific groups.

It's not uncommon in Gov't -just think about Affirmative Action. They clearly have no problem violating the equal protection clause.

Again, just to be clear - the guy should be punished for what he did, not his Constituionally protected opinion of who he likes, dislikes, loves or hates.

Hate Crimes are just a backdoor way to punish thought that is Constituionally Protected.

Imagine if the Gov't said : "Any Socialist who cheats on their taxes is guilty of Subversion and will be punished with a Special Law that is far harsher than a non Socialist who cheats on their taxes."

It simply would violate the Equal Protection clause and your Free Speech Rights.

As do the Hate Crime laws.

I think some of you are missing the point behind the arrest and charges. He was NOT arrested for making anti-gay comments, he was arrested for causing damage and threatening two individuals for being openly gay. The reasoning behind the laws for this kind of behavior is to stop idiots like this from being violent against others because of their race, religion, etc., NOT to interfere with anyone's freedom of speech.

It is your right to like or dislike anyone, it is your right to make rude and obnoxious comments, but if you step over the line and become menacing/violent, it is a HATE CRIME. There is an extra charge because the perpetrator is committing TWO crimes, one of menacing/being violent and one of interfering with the victims right to live their life as they see fit.

Ryan in Tejas--you defy every single thing that Jesus stood for. You rag on all forms of democracy and are against anyone that not a Christian heterosexual white male. Take off the white sheet and join the 21st century.

Ryan,

The crimes against heterosexuals weren't the sum of hate crimes against individuals how happen to be heterosexual, it is the sum of crimes against people for being heterosexuals. You'll find 500 anti-white, 800 anti-Jewish ect regardless of sexuality. If you have ever seen of or heard of someone being attacked for being straight and hugging in public, please do tell the authorities. I never knew being straight was so risky.

Ryan, Wizard,

I accept the criticism of Wizard about how we should 'respectfully disagree'. The idea that people try to turn very obvious 'wrongs' into obscure legal arguments and support their odious ideas with legaleze does evoke an emotional reaction from me: Guilty as charged!

However, I'd rather be guilty of being intemperate in an argument than to be on the wrong side of humanity. If I am to accept Wizard's interpretation of Ryan's argument, then you are saying that some lofty ideal of your personal interpretation of the constitution takes precedence over the civil and constitutional rights of a segment of our society. That you would rather have the person serve the document than have the document serve the person. We have many. many laws that would not pass a strict constructionist interpretation of the constitution. It is the ability of our society to grow and change and the brilliance of the constitution to be vague and specific at the same time that make our "Grande Experiment" work.

Your Irishman/Englishman argument is pathetically absurd (Sorry, I wanted to pad that one for respectful disagreement but it was just too stupid). While I recognize that there once was a time... Are either Irishmen or Englishmen called out on the streets of this country on a regular basis for their heritage? Hate crime laws are there to right a wrong. They are there to correct a situation where many Americans were being denied their constitutional rights on the basis of some idiot's idea of how other people should speak, pray, or fall in love. So you are saying that because your hatred of people you never met is so strong, that you can come up with the most convoluted example of an extreme interpretation of the law, that no one but you perceived. That on the basis of this absurd interpretation we should allow large segments of the population to be at the mercy of these idiots?

Somewhere in the minutia of an obscure law book you might have the beginnings of a point, but I prefer to side with thousands of Americans having their rights protected by law and accept that maybe someone who chose to act illegally (which you admit) may have an additional charge that isn't in perfect alignment with your strict interpretation of the constitution. If you and this guy really disagree with the additional charge of 'hate crime' maybe you should hold down your hatred and not commit any. The rest of us are fine with throwing your asses in jail for longer.

Why do I have this overwhelming feeling that you motives are far more embedded in hatred of people who don't fall into lockstep with what you think is 'right' than any feigned support for the constitution?

So let's see, you are all for the constitution, just not constitutional rights for everyone.

David,

Thanks for proving something I've always known. Namely, that most people cannot simply come up with a logical rebuttal of a person's points without getting emotionally involved, while at the same time failing to logically argue their points.

Your comments regarding my Irishman/Englishman scenario didn't even remotely answer my question. I used it an example to try and point out what the law itself specifically states. Instead of attempting to understand what I was trying to say, you insult me and can't even answer the question. How sad, and yet how typical of the average human being these days. You're all about emotion and far too lacking in reason.

You say the "hate crimes" law is there to "correct a situation where many Americans were being denied their constitutional rights". Really? How exactly were they being denied their constitutional rights? Because nobody was prosecuting their tormenters? Because they could be assaulted with impunity? If that's the case, what makes you think adding another law to the books is going to change that?

You don't pass more laws if the current laws are not being enforced. This has been my entire point. I guess that level of thinking is beyond your capabilities. Tough luck huh?

And by the way, I don't hate homosexuals. I have several friends who are openly homosexual, so your assumption only makes you look stupid. This isn't about homosexuality. It is about setting legal precedents that do not make any real sense. Maybe someday if you can take your emotionally driven bs out of the equation, you might actually understand that.

I won't hold my breath though. People like you would much rather believe what you want to believe, instead of question anything. It's a hell of a stupid way to go through life, but most of you seem happy with it.

Pathetic. Truly pathetic.

I know why you named yourself the wizard. Clearly you consider yourself some wizard of sophistry.

Why don't you just admit that you can't stand the idea that gays can live their lives without thinly veiled haters like you defending people who try on a daily basis to make their lives less than yours or mine.

Why does this bother you? You act like you are some superior being, above emotion and the heat of argument when the source of your argument is either centered in, or blind to the ugliest emotions there are: Prejudice. People are being called out on the street many times a day and you want to argue the finer points of the constitution. Are you so blinded by your black soul that you think people can't see that there is absolutely no reason to put forth your arguments, other than to promote the harassment of these people. Please don't insult me by pretending some scholarly interest. Do you really think we're all that stupid?

I didn't answer the points of your English/Irish argument because there weren't any that applied to this situation. We, or at least the people without a hateful agenda, were discussing how minorities of all kinds need protections from bigots, no matter how well they phrase their arguments.

The correlation between that and a one-on-one argument between people of equal standing in the community, has absolutely nothing to do with what we were talking about in any one's head but yours.

Why don't you get behind equality for ALL Americans instead of arguing how many racists can dance on the head of a pin, and hiding behind the constitution?

You redefine pathetic! (and i say that as an observation with no emotion but pity).

Also, great wizard of words, Why, if you are so logical, did you choose to call me names and otherwise discredit what I said by attacking my emotions rather than my arguments? Did they teach you in college that this is one of the recognized 'fallacies of logic'? Did you go to college?

You were conspicuously silent about the man serving the document or acknowledging that many laws do not fit a strict constitutional interpretation. No, by some very strange coincidence you chose a law that just happens to defend minorities. A total random selection, I'm sure.

If you want to argue logic, I suggest you start at some point. You haven't argued a single point I made. You were too busy telling us how some of your best friends are gay. (Not if any of them read the crap you are writing here). If you want to accuse me of being emotional, I have admitted it three notes ago. It doesn't mean I don't have the superior argument no matter how you weave your sophistry. In this 'argument of ideas' I, at least, mentioned your 'arguments' You were too busy telling people how emotional I was to refute even one of them.

And you are the logical, unemotional one. RIGHT! Pathetic doesn't begin to cover it.

Ryan & Wizard:
Does a crime warrant a more severe punishment because of the motivation behind it (namely, hate)?

I would like to answer 'yes', for these reasons:

1. A hate crime carries with it additional psychological tolls that its non-hate-motivated counterpart does not. IMO, it is comparable to terrorism, in that it has a lasting effect on the individual and other members of the affected group who were not direct victims of the crime. Take for example a white individual assaulted by a group of hate-motivated non-white individuals, in a predominantly non-white neighbourhood. The white individual may now feel additional anxiety that may not have been present with an assault by persons of the same race for mere financial reasons. Also, a message of terror may have been sent to other white individuals in the neighbourhood. These additional effects must be taken into account for, in addition to the more "tangible" damage of the crime.
2. Whenever a type of crime is singled out for harsher punishment, it is society's way of saying that it has less tolerance for that type of crime. We, as a society, seem to consider that discrimination-based crimes (based on factors such as race, religions, & other factional fault lines in the facade of society) to be more harmful to the stability of society than economically-based ones (robberies, general greed, etc.).

In conclusion, I think that the motivation for a crime is a significant factor, and deserves special consideration when determining the proper degree of punishment. To ignore the motivation behind a crime is short-sighted, and is less capable of solving society's ills.

For a definition of a hate crime (and its qualifiers), please look on the net. It is up to the court whether the charges for this particular case hold up.

Thank you all for maintaining a polite discourse.

Do I honestly have to point out to anyone that someone who names himself Wizard of Wisdom is in love with the sound of his own voice? I won’t fault him for being on the wrong side of every issue (he considers Manning nothing but a criminal, hates OWS and wants hate laws repealed). All of that is his right.

The problem for Mr. Wizard is his cartoon-esque, black/white view of the world (Manning had other choices, OWS should be law abiding and hate laws are unconstitutional). Then he slips from cartoons to TV. The most pathetic thing about Mr. Wizard is that he watched too many Star Trek reruns and thinks that if he acts detached and unemotional like “Spock” that somehow this makes him intelligent and logical.

Mr. Wizard’s mind is so simplistic that he equates ‘passion’ with ‘irrationality’ and ‘stoicism’ with ‘intelligence’. His M.O. here is to seize upon the passion of an author and then discredit everything he says by pointing out the emotionality, while never once even trying to refuting a single point the author has made. He pontificates, sprinkling comments about his superior intelligence and the inability of others to match his logic, when, in fact, the problem with arguing with his logic is that there isn’t any.

Mr. Wizard makes declarative statements and then doesn’t even attempt to back them up, acting as though we should all be thankful that he found us worthy of his pearls of wisdom (of which he is the Wizard). His trick is to masque the evil passion of his restrictive view of society into a stoic presentation of his twisted ideas, which then criticize not the merit of opposing ideas, (I don’t think he is capable of that-at least he’s never tried). but instead, hiding behind his ‘Spock-like’ exterior, declaring that anyone who presents an idea more impassioned than his own is too swayed by emotion to be listened to. Then he makes absolutely no attempt to intellectually grapple with the opposing idea. He acts as though his distain for passion was enough.

If Mr. Wizard were a little more educated he might have come across Bertrand Russell’s observation that Man created logic because of an emotional need to prove his feelings were correct. That if Man did not have an emotional need to prove him self to others, he never would have developed logic.

Mr. Wizard seems to feel that passion is the opposite of logic, when really it is the embodiment and source. So keep telling yourself how superior you are, while never once backing any of your own positions and arguing others positions by attacking them, rather than their ideas. Ironically, this trick is so basic and so sophomoric that I learned it as a ‘Fallacy of Logic’ in High School, before I ever got to college.

Mr. Wizard needs to learn that there is more to logic than pretending you are “Spock” You have to present and defend real ideas and actually refute other people’s arguments instead of looking down your nose and declaring them ‘too emotional’. Clearly, ‘Wizard of Wisdom’ is so named because all of his wisdom is a magic trick.

So are you going to treat us with some more anal drivel about how superior you are, or are you capable of making an actual counter point? (I’m betting on the former)

Really? Into stereotyping much?

David J Kane: No, it was Sundance!

The perp may have been intoxicated....... WOW, who woulda thought!

Blah blah blah blah liberals blah blah blah blah blah because of liberals blah blah blah.

Let's see, the man broke the window of the vehicle and began approaching them in a threatening manner. I don't care what color, ethnicity, sex or culture you're from you have a right to protect yourself when being potentially attacked. I know...just shoot 'em, the answer many right wingers have when someone doesn't agree with them. I guess they should only be able to defend themselves if they are white, heterosexual, males since according to you the ladies were wrong.

OK Steven. The guy (I use the term loosely) broke her window. That is a felony. She held him until the law came to get him. If you have a problem with that, then you are anti-american.

Steven. Are you closeted? Looks that way to the rest of the world.

Sorry, Steven C, you're wrong again. And paranoid to boot. No one in this thread has said it would okay to do what you are claiming they are saying. Except the two who kept going back and forth, with the "conservative" one being the rudest. But at least they were going at each other. You like calling people things like "scum"? That's fine; you have freedom of speech. Doesn't make you superior to anyone else, though.

Terrorizing a community is not the same crime as terrorizing an individual. If you string up someone and hang him up on a cross in the town square with "die whitey" written in his own blood, you'll find you'll be charged with more than assault....

There are over 500 prosecuted anti-white hate crimes a year. 21 specifically anti-heterosexual. The problem you have is that you support hate crimes and you can't stand people getting arrested for attacking gay people.

"There are over 500 prosecuted anti-white hate crimes a year. 21 specifically anti-heterosexual. The problem you have is that you support hate crimes and you can't stand people getting arrested for attacking gay people."

When? Do you have links to these incidents? You would think that out of 500 whites getting attacked by non-whites because of their race and 21 straight bashings, there would be a report we'd read here. While reverse discrimination is not unlikely, I've been to gay night clubs and have seen straights and straight couples there and they were treated just fine. Until a black power group is caught stringing up a white guy or there are reports of drag queens scratching the eyes out of random hetros, I don't think the white breeders have anything to worry about.