| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"loose cannon" |
| Date: |
14 Jun 2005 04:33:38 AM |
| Object: |
Senate apologizes for history of lynchings |
Negroes have been having a rough time in this country since the early
1600's. An apology is an insult; if the Senate is truly sorry, they'll
erect a large statue of a negro dangling from a tree on the White House
lawn as a fitting memorial.
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/politics/11887671.htm
Senate apologizes for history of lynchings
WASHINGTON - (KRT) - The Senate apologized Monday to lynching victims
and their descendants, a belated attempt to make amends for what some
lawmakers acknowledged was the Senate's shameful 19th- and 20th-
century history of blocking efforts to end the grisly practice of
lynching African Americans.
With the survivor of a lynching and families of victims watching from
the Senate's visitors' gallery, Sen. Mary Landrieu, a Louisiana
Democrat and main sponsor of the legislation calling for a rare Senate
apology, spoke with an unusual visual aid. It was a gruesome 1930s-era
photo of a black lynching victim hanging from a tree as a white mob,
including children, looked on, with many of them smiling.
"The Senate was wrong not to act," she said, referring to the chamber's
repeated failure over a nearly 100-year period to support the efforts
of the House and seven presidents to make lynching a federal crime.
Those efforts were undone over the decades by filibusters by Southern
senators, either racists themselves or unwilling to anger racist
constituents. Available records indicate mobs, often with the
complicity of local officials, lynched at least 4,742 people,
three-fourths of them black, between 1882 and 1968.
.
|
|
| User: "Peacenik" |
|
| Title: Re: Senate apologizes for history of lynchings |
14 Jun 2005 02:15:37 PM |
|
|
"loose cannon" <looseaint@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1118723618.903364.302520@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Negroes
<plonk>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sanders Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: Senate apologizes for history of lynchings |
14 Jun 2005 04:46:41 AM |
|
|
"loose cannon" <looseaint@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1118723618.903364.302520@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Negroes have been having a rough time in this country since the early
1600's. An apology is an insult; if the Senate is truly sorry, they'll
erect a large statue of a negro dangling from a tree on the White House
lawn as a fitting memorial.
In another 100 years, they can apologize for Guantinamo, Kandahar, Baghdad
and the other death camps as well.
.
|
|
|
| User: "brutus" |
|
| Title: Re: Senate apologizes for history of lynchings |
14 Jun 2005 05:22:42 AM |
|
|
"Sanders Kaufman" <unsentt@kaufman.net> wrote in message
news:Ritre.1064$Nz2.975@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
"loose cannon" <looseaint@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1118723618.903364.302520@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Negroes have been having a rough time in this country since the early
1600's. An apology is an insult; if the Senate is truly sorry, they'll
erect a large statue of a negro dangling from a tree on the White House
lawn as a fitting memorial.
In another 100 years, they can apologize for Guantinamo, Kandahar, Baghdad
and the other death camps as well.
Right after they apologize for stripping the poor and downtrodden of their
dignity through the enactment of welfare and other entitlements.
Brutus
.
|
|
|
| User: "Clave" |
|
| Title: Re: Senate apologizes for history of lynchings |
14 Jun 2005 05:32:17 AM |
|
|
"brutus" <brutus@thebrute.com> wrote in message
news:CQtre.4050$jX6.173@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Sanders Kaufman" <unsentt@kaufman.net> wrote in message
news:Ritre.1064$Nz2.975@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
"loose cannon" <looseaint@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1118723618.903364.302520@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Negroes have been having a rough time in this country since the early
1600's. An apology is an insult; if the Senate is truly sorry, they'll
erect a large statue of a negro dangling from a tree on the White House
lawn as a fitting memorial.
In another 100 years, they can apologize for Guantinamo, Kandahar, Baghdad
and the other death camps as well.
Right after they apologize for stripping the poor and downtrodden of their
dignity through the enactment of welfare and other entitlements.
Dammit -- leave some kool-aid for other people.
Jim
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sanders Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: Senate apologizes for history of lynchings |
14 Jun 2005 05:43:48 AM |
|
|
"brutus" <brutus@thebrute.com> wrote in message
news:CQtre.4050$jX6.173@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Sanders Kaufman" <unsentt@kaufman.net> wrote in message
In another 100 years, they can apologize for Guantinamo, Kandahar,
Baghdad and the other death camps as well.
Right after they apologize for stripping the poor and downtrodden of their
dignity through the enactment of welfare and other entitlements.
Yeah, because that's what strips the poor of their dignity - Dinner.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "ריעין ברתון/Riain Barton" |
|
| Title: Re: Senate apologizes for history of lynchings |
14 Jun 2005 05:46:27 AM |
|
|
Spoken like a true ignorant bigoted brute.
"brutus" <brutus@thebrute.com> wrote in message
news:CQtre.4050$jX6.173@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
:
: Right after they apologize for stripping the poor and downtrodden of
their
: dignity through the enactment of welfare and other entitlements.
:
: Brutus
:
:
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "towelie" |
|
| Title: Re: Senate apologizes for history of lynchings |
14 Jun 2005 07:23:41 AM |
|
|
TV's brutus wrote:
"Sanders Kaufman" <unsentt@kaufman.net> wrote in message
news:Ritre.1064$Nz2.975@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
"loose cannon" <looseaint@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1118723618.903364.302520@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Negroes have been having a rough time in this country since the early
1600's. An apology is an insult; if the Senate is truly sorry, they'll
erect a large statue of a negro dangling from a tree on the White House
lawn as a fitting memorial.
In another 100 years, they can apologize for Guantinamo, Kandahar,
Baghdad
and the other death camps as well.
Right after they apologize for stripping the poor and downtrodden of their
dignity through the enactment of welfare and other entitlements.
if the GOP keeps destroying America, the country will not exist in 100
years.
--
Beliefs are dangerous. Beliefs allow the mind to stop functioning.
A non-functioning mind is clinically dead. Believe in nothing.
- Maynard James Keenan
The belief in the Christian god... is an appalling nightmare. I reject
the notion that the whole universe was created by this kind of evil
creature who would create such a thing. - Anthony Flew, March 22, 2005
aa #2133
ap #19
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robert Salerno" |
|
| Title: Re: Senate apologizes for history of lynchings |
15 Jun 2005 06:56:27 PM |
|
|
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/politics/11887671.htm
Senate apologizes for history of lynchings
WASHINGTON - (KRT) - The Senate apologized Monday to lynching victims
and their descendants, a belated attempt to make amends for what some
lawmakers acknowledged was the Senate's shameful 19th- and 20th-
century history of blocking efforts to end the grisly practice of
lynching African Americans.
This is something that the Senate should be proud of.
"Being a ***** is embarrassment,
being John Gotti's grandson is an honor." - John Gotti
www.thesmokinggun.com/blowingupgotti
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Senate apologizes for history of lynchings |
15 Jun 2005 09:21:46 PM |
|
|
Robert Salerno wrote:
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/politics/11887671.htm
Senate apologizes for history of lynchings
WASHINGTON - (KRT) - The Senate apologized Monday to lynching victims
and their descendants, a belated attempt to make amends for what some
lawmakers acknowledged was the Senate's shameful 19th- and 20th-
century history of blocking efforts to end the grisly practice of
lynching African Americans.
This is something that the Senate should be proud of.
No it is not.
They should be ashamed for what happened in the past and more ashamed for
not making it illegal NOW.
There is something fundamentally wrong with a country that has federal laws
against the use of Marijuana and none for lynching.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Susan Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: Senate apologizes for history of lynchings |
16 Jun 2005 02:00:34 AM |
|
|
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:KZ0se.29256$J12.27914@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
They should be ashamed for what happened in the past
That's what the apology was for.
and more ashamed for
not making it illegal NOW.
What are you talking about?
It IS illegal now!
There is something fundamentally wrong with a country that has federal
laws against the use of Marijuana and none for lynching.
Murder is already illegal in the US.
Susan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sanders Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: Senate apologizes for history of lynchings |
16 Jun 2005 05:07:34 AM |
|
|
"Susan Cohen" <flavia18@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:635se.5982$yw4.5370@trnddc09...
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
There is something fundamentally wrong with a country that has federal
laws against the use of Marijuana and none for lynching.
Murder is already illegal in the US.
There should be a special consideration given to those who lynch, evern more
painful than for those who are simple murderers.
Any time the state rounds up people, locks them up, and kills them - all
without trial, they should get a *special* reward.
Right now, Americans are lynching people all over the world.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "ריעין ברתון/Riain Barton" |
|
| Title: Re: Senate apologizes for history of lynchings |
16 Jun 2005 02:54:46 AM |
|
|
He must have forgotten about the 'hate crime' legislation, which would
cover lynching, as it does even for cross-burning.
"Susan Cohen" <flavia18@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:635se.5982$yw4.5370@trnddc09...
:
: "Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
: news:KZ0se.29256$J12.27914@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
: >
: > They should be ashamed for what happened in the past
:
: That's what the apology was for.
:
: and more ashamed for
: > not making it illegal NOW.
:
: What are you talking about?
: It IS illegal now!
: >
: > There is something fundamentally wrong with a country that has
federal
: > laws against the use of Marijuana and none for lynching.
:
: Murder is already illegal in the US.
:
: Susan
: >
: >
: >
:
:
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Senate apologizes for history of lynchings |
16 Jun 2005 05:52:47 AM |
|
|
Susan Cohen wrote:
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:KZ0se.29256$J12.27914@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
They should be ashamed for what happened in the past
That's what the apology was for.
and more ashamed for
not making it illegal NOW.
What are you talking about?
It IS illegal now!
There is something fundamentally wrong with a country that has
federal laws against the use of Marijuana and none for lynching.
Murder is already illegal in the US.
Not the point. The same argument applies to hate crimes, would you have
someone who placed a swastika and specific race based obscenities on a
temple wall a temple charged with the same thing as the gang member who tags
it because it is blank?
If , as somebody else said, the hate crime laws cover lynching then it is
illegal.
Murder is illegal. There are no laws against lynching. If you don't die and
the lyncher played his cards right they could string you up and either get
away with it or be charged with a lesser crime.
Lynching also implies a crowd and no penalties apply to the watchers.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Susan Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: Senate apologizes for history of lynchings |
16 Jun 2005 06:21:20 AM |
|
|
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:Ps8se.2416$Pa5.2293@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
Susan Cohen wrote:
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:KZ0se.29256$J12.27914@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
They should be ashamed for what happened in the past
That's what the apology was for.
and more ashamed for
not making it illegal NOW.
What are you talking about?
It IS illegal now!
There is something fundamentally wrong with a country that has
federal laws against the use of Marijuana and none for lynching.
Murder is already illegal in the US.
Not the point. The same argument applies to hate crimes, would you have
someone who placed a swastika and specific race based obscenities on a
temple wall a temple charged with the same thing as the gang member who
tags it because it is blank?
Then what you are asking for is that it should have been made a hate crime.
While you are correct, no one had that mindset back then - the scenario you
pose above would also not have existed back then.
Susan
If , as somebody else said, the hate crime laws cover lynching then it is
illegal.
Murder is illegal. There are no laws against lynching. If you don't die
and the lyncher played his cards right they could string you up and either
get away with it or be charged with a lesser crime.
Untrue - an unsuccessful ynching is "attempted murder".
If you cant prove thatsomeone tried to lynch someone, you aren't going to be
able to tag a hate crime on them, either.
Lynching also implies a crowd and no penalties apply to the watchers.
Of course it does; without a hate crimes attachment to lynching, they would
simply get whatever anyone else gets who stands by & watches a murder. This,
I believe, varies from state to state.
But, in the end, I happen to agree with you, now that I know what you are
trying to say.
Susan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sanders Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: Senate apologizes for history of lynchings |
16 Jun 2005 06:38:12 AM |
|
|
"Susan Cohen" <flavia18@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:AT8se.10058$L65.4313@trnddc05...
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
Lynching also implies a crowd and no penalties apply to the watchers.
Of course it does; without a hate crimes attachment to lynching, they
would simply get whatever anyone else gets who stands by & watches a
murder. This, I believe, varies from state to state.
"Hate Crime" waters it down waaaay too much.
Besides, a lot of juries don't take "thought crimes" seriously.
Lynching doesn't just "imply a crowd".
It involves an entire community - a government if you will.
That's why you never hear about a lone lyncher.
.
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: Senate apologizes for history of lynchings |
16 Jun 2005 01:31:06 PM |
|
|
In article <o79se.1697$Nz2.1576@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>, "Sanders
Kaufman" <NNTP@kaufman.net> wrote:
"Susan Cohen" <flavia18@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:AT8se.10058$L65.4313@trnddc05...
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
Lynching also implies a crowd and no penalties apply to the watchers.
Of course it does; without a hate crimes attachment to lynching, they
would simply get whatever anyone else gets who stands by & watches a
murder. This, I believe, varies from state to state.
"Hate Crime" waters it down waaaay too much.
Besides, a lot of juries don't take "thought crimes" seriously.
They shouldn't. "Thought crimes" are Orwellian and should be dismissed
by any right thinking person.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sanders Kaufman" |
|
| Title: Re: Senate apologizes for history of lynchings |
18 Jun 2005 09:44:31 AM |
|
|
"BTR1701" <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:BTR1702-19E9C0.09314416062005@news.east.earthlink.net...
In article <o79se.1697$Nz2.1576@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>, "Sanders
"Hate Crime" waters it down waaaay too much.
Besides, a lot of juries don't take "thought crimes" seriously.
They shouldn't. "Thought crimes" are Orwellian and should be dismissed
by any right thinking person.
It's foolish for you to take Orwell so seriously.
You know it was a work of fiction, don't you?
The issue of "criminal intent" in law is an important one.
Dismissing it would be very stupid.
.
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: Senate apologizes for history of lynchings |
18 Jun 2005 02:52:33 PM |
|
|
In article <32Sse.2158$Nz2.562@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>,
"Sanders Kaufman" <NNTP@kaufman.net> wrote:
"BTR1701" <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:BTR1702-19E9C0.09314416062005@news.east.earthlink.net...
In article <o79se.1697$Nz2.1576@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>, "Sanders
"Hate Crime" waters it down waaaay too much.
Besides, a lot of juries don't take "thought crimes" seriously.
They shouldn't. "Thought crimes" are Orwellian and should be dismissed
by any right thinking person.
It's foolish for you to take Orwell so seriously.
You know it was a work of fiction, don't you?
The story was but the principles involved are not.
The issue of "criminal intent" in law is an important one.
Dismissing it would be very stupid.
For the law to look to whether a person had intent or not is appropriate.
For the law to distinguish between one kind of intent and another is not.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mickey" |
|
| Title: Re: Senate apologizes for history of lynchings |
18 Jun 2005 02:59:49 PM |
|
|
"BTR1701" <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:btr1702-928C38.10523318062005@news.giganews.com...
In article <32Sse.2158$Nz2.562@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>,
"Sanders Kaufman" <NNTP@kaufman.net> wrote:
"BTR1701" <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:BTR1702-19E9C0.09314416062005@news.east.earthlink.net...
In article <o79se.1697$Nz2.1576@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>, "Sanders
"Hate Crime" waters it down waaaay too much.
Besides, a lot of juries don't take "thought crimes" seriously.
They shouldn't. "Thought crimes" are Orwellian and should be dismissed
by any right thinking person.
It's foolish for you to take Orwell so seriously.
You know it was a work of fiction, don't you?
The story was but the principles involved are not.
The issue of "criminal intent" in law is an important one.
Dismissing it would be very stupid.
For the law to look to whether a person had intent or not is appropriate.
Wow, I wonder if someone could POSSIBLY be more incorrect. Motive is, has
and always will be a major part of the legal system. Sadly, not enough,
though. For example, a man gets in an arguement, pulls out a gun and fires
at someone and kills him. He goes to jail for murder, and will be there
quite some time. Now let us assume he pulled the gun and missed. In that
case, he will go for eitehr attempted muredr or assault with a deadly, and
be put away for a few years. The message we send of course is "come back
when you get it right". If the intent was to kill, then this person should
be treated exactly the same way as if he had succeeded.
Mickey
For the law to distinguish between one kind of intent and another is not.
.
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: Senate apologizes for history of lynchings |
18 Jun 2005 05:09:06 PM |
|
|
In article <3pOdnQ-xjoeDqynfRVn-qw@comcast.com>,
"Mickey" <mickeyb@comcast.net> wrote:
"BTR1701" <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:btr1702-928C38.10523318062005@news.giganews.com...
In article <32Sse.2158$Nz2.562@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>,
"Sanders Kaufman" <NNTP@kaufman.net> wrote:
"BTR1701" <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:BTR1702-19E9C0.09314416062005@news.east.earthlink.net...
In article <o79se.1697$Nz2.1576@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>, "Sanders
"Hate Crime" waters it down waaaay too much.
Besides, a lot of juries don't take "thought crimes" seriously.
They shouldn't. "Thought crimes" are Orwellian and should be dismissed
by any right thinking person.
It's foolish for you to take Orwell so seriously.
You know it was a work of fiction, don't you?
The story was but the principles involved are not.
The issue of "criminal intent" in law is an important one.
Dismissing it would be very stupid.
For the law to look to whether a person had intent or not is appropriate.
Wow, I wonder if someone could POSSIBLY be more incorrect. Motive is, has
and always will be a major part of the legal system.
Could you vague that up a little more? Exactly how is motive a part of
the legal system?
It's not something that the prosecution has to prove at trial.
It's not an element of any other criminal offense except "hate crimes"
which is what I'm taking issue with.
For example, a man gets in an arguement, pulls out a gun and fires
at someone and kills him. He goes to jail for murder, and will be there
quite some time. Now let us assume he pulled the gun and missed. In that
case, he will go for eitehr attempted muredr or assault with a deadly, and
be put away for a few years. The message we send of course is "come back
when you get it right".
No, that's just the message you've received. It's certainly not the one
that was sent.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mickey" |
|
| Title: Re: Senate apologizes for history of lynchings |
18 Jun 2005 05:30:05 PM |
|
|
"BTR1701" <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:btr1702-F19C5B.13090618062005@news.giganews.com...
In article <3pOdnQ-xjoeDqynfRVn-qw@comcast.com>,
"Mickey" <mickeyb@comcast.net> wrote:
"BTR1701" <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:btr1702-928C38.10523318062005@news.giganews.com...
In article <32Sse.2158$Nz2.562@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>,
"Sanders Kaufman" <NNTP@kaufman.net> wrote:
"BTR1701" <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:BTR1702-19E9C0.09314416062005@news.east.earthlink.net...
In article <o79se.1697$Nz2.1576@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>,
"Sanders
"Hate Crime" waters it down waaaay too much.
Besides, a lot of juries don't take "thought crimes" seriously.
They shouldn't. "Thought crimes" are Orwellian and should be
dismissed
by any right thinking person.
It's foolish for you to take Orwell so seriously.
You know it was a work of fiction, don't you?
The story was but the principles involved are not.
The issue of "criminal intent" in law is an important one.
Dismissing it would be very stupid.
For the law to look to whether a person had intent or not is
appropriate.
Wow, I wonder if someone could POSSIBLY be more incorrect. Motive is,
has
and always will be a major part of the legal system.
Could you vague that up a little more? Exactly how is motive a part of
the legal system?
The difference between murder one and murder two, for example. There is even
a phrase used in D.A.s in NYC, "intent follows the bullet".
It's not something that the prosecution has to prove at trial.
The hell it ain't, if you want charges of murder one, or premedidated
murder.
It's not an element of any other criminal offense except "hate crimes"
which is what I'm taking issue with.
Still wrong here.
For example, a man gets in an arguement, pulls out a gun and fires
at someone and kills him. He goes to jail for murder, and will be there
quite some time. Now let us assume he pulled the gun and missed. In that
case, he will go for eitehr attempted muredr or assault with a deadly,
and
be put away for a few years. The message we send of course is "come back
when you get it right".
No, that's just the message you've received. It's certainly not the one
that was sent.
A difference without distinction.
Mickey
.
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: Senate apologizes for history of lynchings |
18 Jun 2005 07:00:29 PM |
|
|
In article <3Nqdnbs8_crhxCnfRVn-3g@comcast.com>,
"Mickey" <mickeyb@comcast.net> wrote:
"BTR1701" <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:btr1702-F19C5B.13090618062005@news.giganews.com...
In article <3pOdnQ-xjoeDqynfRVn-qw@comcast.com>,
"Mickey" <mickeyb@comcast.net> wrote:
"BTR1701" <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:btr1702-928C38.10523318062005@news.giganews.com...
In article <32Sse.2158$Nz2.562@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>,
"Sanders Kaufman" <NNTP@kaufman.net> wrote:
"BTR1701" <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:BTR1702-19E9C0.09314416062005@news.east.earthlink.net...
In article <o79se.1697$Nz2.1576@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>,
"Sanders
"Hate Crime" waters it down waaaay too much.
Besides, a lot of juries don't take "thought crimes" seriously.
They shouldn't. "Thought crimes" are Orwellian and should be
dismissed
by any right thinking person.
It's foolish for you to take Orwell so seriously.
You know it was a work of fiction, don't you?
The story was but the principles involved are not.
The issue of "criminal intent" in law is an important one.
Dismissing it would be very stupid.
For the law to look to whether a person had intent or not is appropriate.
Wow, I wonder if someone could POSSIBLY be more incorrect. Motive is, has
and always will be a major part of the legal system.
Could you vague that up a little more? Exactly how is motive a part of
the legal system?
The difference between murder one and murder two, for example. There is even
a phrase used in D.A.s in NYC, "intent follows the bullet".
Intent and motive are two different things. Which one are you talking
about?
It's not something that the prosecution has to prove at trial.
The hell it ain't, if you want charges of murder one, or premedidated
murder.
Here is the Texas murder statute. Point me out the element of "motive"
(keeping in mind that intent and motive are two different things):
A person commits an offense if he:
(1) intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual;
(2) intends to cause serious bodily injury and commits an act
clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual;
or
(3) commits or attempts to commit a felony, other than
manslaughter, and in the course of and in furtherance of the commission
or attempt, or in immediate flight from the commission or attempt, he
commits or attempts to commit an act clearly dangerous to human life
that causes the death of an individual.
(c) Except as provided by Subsection (d), an offense under this
section is a felony of the first degree.
It's not an element of any other criminal offense except "hate crimes"
which is what I'm taking issue with.
Still wrong here.
Wow. You just declare something wrong and don't even bother to back it
up. Such a persuasive argument.
For example, a man gets in an arguement, pulls out a gun and fires
at someone and kills him. He goes to jail for murder, and will be there
quite some time. Now let us assume he pulled the gun and missed. In that
case, he will go for eitehr attempted muredr or assault with a deadly, and
be put away for a few years. The message we send of course is "come back
when you get it right".
No, that's just the message you've received. It's certainly not the one
that was sent.
A difference without distinction.
The distinction is quite apparent. Shame you can't figure that out.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mickey" |
|
| Title: Re: Senate apologizes for history of lynchings |
18 Jun 2005 08:01:37 PM |
|
|
"BTR1701" <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:btr1702-413036.15002918062005@news.giganews.com...
In article <3Nqdnbs8_crhxCnfRVn-3g@comcast.com>,
"Mickey" <mickeyb@comcast.net> wrote:
"BTR1701" <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:btr1702-F19C5B.13090618062005@news.giganews.com...
In article <3pOdnQ-xjoeDqynfRVn-qw@comcast.com>,
"Mickey" <mickeyb@comcast.net> wrote:
"BTR1701" <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:btr1702-928C38.10523318062005@news.giganews.com...
In article <32Sse.2158$Nz2.562@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>,
"Sanders Kaufman" <NNTP@kaufman.net> wrote:
"BTR1701" <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:BTR1702-19E9C0.09314416062005@news.east.earthlink.net...
In article <o79se.1697$Nz2.1576@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>,
"Sanders
"Hate Crime" waters it down waaaay too much.
Besides, a lot of juries don't take "thought crimes"
seriously.
They shouldn't. "Thought crimes" are Orwellian and should be
dismissed
by any right thinking person.
It's foolish for you to take Orwell so seriously.
You know it was a work of fiction, don't you?
The story was but the principles involved are not.
The issue of "criminal intent" in law is an important one.
Dismissing it would be very stupid.
For the law to look to whether a person had intent or not is
appropriate.
Wow, I wonder if someone could POSSIBLY be more incorrect. Motive
is, has
and always will be a major part of the legal system.
Could you vague that up a little more? Exactly how is motive a part of
the legal system?
The difference between murder one and murder two, for example. There is
even
a phrase used in D.A.s in NYC, "intent follows the bullet".
Intent and motive are two different things. Which one are you talking
about?
Intent. You may carry a weapon for protection, and then use it to kill
someone. If you brought the gun specifically to kill that person, then you
intended to. If you just happen to have it with you because you always do,
or the incident takes place in your home, and you just lost your temper, it
is a different matter. Just as would be the difference between two men in a
fistfight, one hits the other once, drops him, head hits the curb and he
dies, versus the same two men in a fight, one knocks the otehr down and then
beats him to death. In one case, the death was an unintended result and the
other a deliberate act. The first would be first degree manslaughter at
worst, the second would be murder 2,
It's not something that the prosecution has to prove at trial.
The hell it ain't, if you want charges of murder one, or premedidated
murder.
Here is the Texas murder statute. Point me out the element of "motive"
(keeping in mind that intent and motive are two different things):
A person commits an offense if he:
(1) intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual;
(2) intends to cause serious bodily injury and commits an act
clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual;
or
(3) commits or attempts to commit a felony, other than
manslaughter, and in the course of and in furtherance of the commission
or attempt, or in immediate flight from the commission or attempt, he
commits or attempts to commit an act clearly dangerous to human life
that causes the death of an individual.
(c) Except as provided by Subsection (d), an offense under this
section is a felony of the first degree.
It's not an element of any other criminal offense except "hate crimes"
which is what I'm taking issue with.
Still wrong here.
Wow. You just declare something wrong and don't even bother to back it
up. Such a persuasive argument.
No, I pointed out that intent was part of the issue, and always is.
For example, a man gets in an arguement, pulls out a gun and fires
at someone and kills him. He goes to jail for murder, and will be
there
quite some time. Now let us assume he pulled the gun and missed. In
that
case, he will go for eitehr attempted muredr or assault with a
deadly, and
be put away for a few years. The message we send of course is "come
back
when you get it right".
No, that's just the message you've received. It's certainly not the
one
that was sent.
A difference without distinction.
The distinction is quite apparent. Shame you can't figure that out.
And by saying so, you wlll make it true?
.
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: Senate apologizes for history of lynchings |
18 Jun 2005 09:37:06 PM |
|
|
In article <O_ednQo3N7x44SnfRVn-rA@comcast.com>,
"Mickey" <mickeyb@comcast.net> wrote:
"BTR1701" <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:btr1702-413036.15002918062005@news.giganews.com...
In article <3Nqdnbs8_crhxCnfRVn-3g@comcast.com>,
"Mickey" <mickeyb@comcast.net> wrote:
"BTR1701" <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:btr1702-F19C5B.13090618062005@news.giganews.com...
In article <3pOdnQ-xjoeDqynfRVn-qw@comcast.com>,
"Mickey" <mickeyb@comcast.net> wrote:
"BTR1701" <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:btr1702-928C38.10523318062005@news.giganews.com...
In article <32Sse.2158$Nz2.562@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>,
"Sanders Kaufman" <NNTP@kaufman.net> wrote:
"BTR1701" <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:BTR1702-19E9C0.09314416062005@news.east.earthlink.net...
In article <o79se.1697$Nz2.1576@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>,
"Sanders
"Hate Crime" waters it down waaaay too much.
Besides, a lot of juries don't take "thought crimes"
seriously.
They shouldn't. "Thought crimes" are Orwellian and should be
dismissed
by any right thinking person.
It's foolish for you to take Orwell so seriously.
You know it was a work of fiction, don't you?
The story was but the principles involved are not.
The issue of "criminal intent" in law is an important one.
Dismissing it would be very stupid.
For the law to look to whether a person had intent or not is
appropriate.
Wow, I wonder if someone could POSSIBLY be more incorrect. Motive
is, has
and always will be a major part of the legal system.
Could you vague that up a little more? Exactly how is motive a part of
the legal system?
The difference between murder one and murder two, for example. There is
even
a phrase used in D.A.s in NYC, "intent follows the bullet".
Intent and motive are two different things. Which one are you talking
about?
Intent. You may carry a weapon for protection, and then use it to kill
someone. If you brought the gun specifically to kill that person, then you
intended to. If you just happen to have it with you because you always do,
or the incident takes place in your home, and you just lost your temper, it
is a different matter. Just as would be the difference between two men in a
fistfight, one hits the other once, drops him, head hits the curb and he
dies, versus the same two men in a fight, one knocks the otehr down and then
beats him to death. In one case, the death was an unintended result and the
other a deliberate act. The first would be first degree manslaughter at
worst, the second would be murder 2,
Intent is merely the distinction between an action with purpose and an
action that's accidental.
Motive is the reason a person commits a crime.
Scenario: One guy kills another by strangulation.
The police determine it's not accidental, nor is it self-defense. The
perpetrator drove to the victims house, broke in and strangled him in
his sleep.
The element of intent has now been satisfied.
However, the motive of the killer is still unknown. Did he strangle his
victim because he owed him money? Did he do it because the victim was
sleeping with his wife? Did he do it out of revenge?
Those are all questions of motive and they are NOT elements of the crime
of murder and they do NOT have to be proven in court in order to obtain
a conviction.
It's not something that the prosecution has to prove at trial.
The hell it ain't, if you want charges of murder one, or premedidated
murder.
Here is the Texas murder statute. Point me out the element of "motive"
(keeping in mind that intent and motive are two different things):
A person commits an offense if he:
(1) intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual;
(2) intends to cause serious bodily injury and commits an act
clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual;
or
(3) commits or attempts to commit a felony, other than
manslaughter, and in the course of and in furtherance of the commission
or attempt, or in immediate flight from the commission or attempt, he
commits or attempts to commit an act clearly dangerous to human life
that causes the death of an individual.
(c) Except as provided by Subsection (d), an offense under this
section is a felony of the first degree.
So no response here? Can't find the "motive" element of the statute? No
big surprise since there isn't one.
It's not an element of any other criminal offense except "hate crimes"
which is what I'm taking issue with.
Still wrong here.
Wow. You just declare something wrong and don't even bother to back it
up. Such a persuasive argument.
No, I pointed out that intent was part of the issue, and always is.
No, you said motive was. And even intent isn't always an element of a
crime. There are certain strict liability crimes for which intent is
irrelevant.
For example, a man gets in an arguement, pulls out a gun and fires
at someone and kills him. He goes to jail for murder, and will be there
quite some time. Now let us assume he pulled the gun and missed. In that
case, he will go for eitehr attempted muredr or assault with a deadly, and
be put away for a few years. The message we send of course is "come back
when you get it right".
No, that's just the message you've received. It's certainly not the one
that was sent.
A difference without distinction.
The distinction is quite apparent. Shame you can't figure that out.
And by saying so, you wlll make it true?
No, it's true whether I say so or not.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Senate apologizes for history of lynchings |
19 Jun 2005 12:27:00 AM |
|
|
Mickey wrote:
There is even a phrase used in D.A.s in NYC, "intent follows the
bullet".
Intent and motive are two different things. Which one are you talking
about?
Intent. You may carry a weapon for protection, and then use it to kill
someone. If you brought the gun specifically to kill that person,
then you intended to. If you just happen to have it with you because
you always do, or the incident takes place in your home, and you just
lost your temper, it is a different matter. Just as would be the
difference between two men in a fistfight, one hits the other once,
drops him, head hits the curb and he dies, versus the same two men in
a fight, one knocks the otehr down and then beats him to death. In
one case, the death was an unintended result and the other a
deliberate act. The first would be first degree manslaughter at
worst, the second would be murder 2,
Which is intent but not motive.
I walk into a store with the *intent* to steal an apple. At that point I
have committed a felony( burglary) and can go to a state penitentiary.
I get caught and am asked *why* I did it. The reason why I did it is the
motive.
I might have done it because I was hungry or because somebody dared me to or
because I wanted to go back to jail .
Motive and intent are two different things.
<snip>
No, I pointed out that intent was part of the issue, and always is.
For example, a man gets in an arguement, pulls out a gun and fires
at someone and kills him. He goes to jail for murder, and will be
there quite some time. Now let us assume he pulled the gun and
missed. In that case, he will go for eitehr attempted muredr or
assault with a deadly, and be put away for a few years. The
message we send of course is "come back when you get it right".
No, that's just the message you've received. It's certainly not
the one that was sent.
A difference without distinction.
The distinction is quite apparent. Shame you can't figure that out.
And by saying so, you wlll make it true.
It is true and your denying it does not make it false.
Call an attorney if you are unsure.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Senate apologizes for history of lynchings |
18 Jun 2005 05:40:51 PM |
|
|
Mickey wrote:
Wow, I wonder if someone could POSSIBLY be more incorrect. Motive is,
has and always will be a major part of the legal system. Sadly, not
enough, though. For example, a man gets in an arguement, pulls out a
gun and fires at someone and kills him. He goes to jail for murder,
and will be there quite some time.
You have given an accurate description of manslaughter, not murder.
"192. Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without
malice. It is of three kinds:
(a) Voluntary--upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion...."
Now let us assume he pulled the
gun and missed. In that case, he will go for eitehr attempted muredr
or assault with a deadly, and be put away for a few years. The
message we send of course is "come back when you get it right". If
the intent was to kill, then this person should be treated exactly
the same way as if he had succeeded.
Maybe. If he has a good attorney he may be charged only with the lesser
included offense of discharging a weapon.
Your example is how most murders are committed and is one of the reasons why
murder has the lowest rate of recidivism.
Few people, if they miss, will ever allow themselves to become that enraged
at their victim, which in most cases is their spouse again.
Yet you would kill them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mickey" |
|
| Title: Re: Senate apologizes for history of lynchings |
18 Jun 2005 05:50:15 PM |
|
|
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:D0Zse.4371$Pa5.3433@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
Mickey wrote:
Wow, I wonder if someone could POSSIBLY be more incorrect. Motive is,
has and always will be a major part of the legal system. Sadly, not
enough, though. For example, a man gets in an arguement, pulls out a
gun and fires at someone and kills him. He goes to jail for murder,
and will be there quite some time.
You have given an accurate description of manslaughter, not murder.
"192. Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without
malice. It is of three kinds:
(a) Voluntary--upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion...."
Now let us assume he pulled the
gun and missed. In that case, he will go for eitehr attempted muredr
or assault with a deadly, and be put away for a few years. The
message we send of course is "come back when you get it right". If
the intent was to kill, then this person should be treated exactly
the same way as if he had succeeded.
Maybe. If he has a good attorney he may be charged only with the lesser
included offense of discharging a weapon.
Your example is how most murders are committed and is one of the reasons
why
murder has the lowest rate of recidivism.
Few people, if they miss, will ever allow themselves to become that
enraged
at their victim, which in most cases is their spouse again.
Yet you would kill them.
Assumes facts not in evidence, namely that I favor the death penalty. Show
me where I said that, and I will concede defeat.
Mickey
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Senate apologizes for history of lynchings |
19 Jun 2005 12:29:51 AM |
|
|
Mickey wrote:
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:D0Zse.4371$Pa5.3433@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
Mickey wrote:
Wow, I wonder if someone could POSSIBLY be more incorrect. Motive
is, has and always will be a major part of the legal system. Sadly,
not enough, though. For example, a man gets in an arguement, pulls
out a gun and fires at someone and kills him. He goes to jail for
murder, and will be there quite some time.
You have given an accurate description of manslaughter, not murder.
"192. Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without
malice. It is of three kinds:
(a) Voluntary--upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion...."
Now let us assume he pulled the
gun and missed. In that case, he will go for eitehr attempted muredr
or assault with a deadly, and be put away for a few years. The
message we send of course is "come back when you get it right". If
the intent was to kill, then this person should be treated exactly
the same way as if he had succeeded.
Maybe. If he has a good attorney he may be charged only with the
lesser included offense of discharging a weapon.
Your example is how most murders are committed and is one of the
reasons why murder has the lowest rate of recidivism.
Few people, if they miss, will ever allow themselves to become that
enraged at their victim, which in most cases is their spouse again.
Yet you would kill them.
Assumes facts not in evidence, namely that I favor the death penalty.
Show me where I said that, and I will concede defeat.
In California and most states of the union the death penalty is always a
possibility.
If you are against it fine.
You just want to put people in jail for something they didn't do.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Senate apologizes for history of lynchings |
16 Jun 2005 08:53:14 AM |
|
|
Sanders Kaufman wrote:
"Susan Cohen" <flavia18@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:AT8se.10058$L65.4313@trnddc05...
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
Lynching also implies a crowd and no penalties apply to the
watchers.
Of course it does; without a hate crimes attachment to lynching, they
would simply get whatever anyone else gets who stands by & watches a
murder. This, I believe, varies from state to state.
"Hate Crime" waters it down waaaay too much.
Besides, a lot of juries don't take "thought crimes" seriously.
Lynching doesn't just "imply a crowd".
It involves an entire community - a government if you will.
That's why you never hear about a lone lyncher.
In many cases it would be easy to show that it was not, by definition a hate
crime.
If a crowd lynches somebody because of what they did and not what they are
it would be impossible to bring charges of hate crime against them.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: Senate apologizes for history of lynchings |
16 Jun 2005 01:30:01 PM |
|
|
In article <Ps8se.2416$Pa5.2293@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>, "Mike
Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Murder is illegal. There are no laws against lynching.
There are no specific laws against killing someone with a staple gun,
either. That's why we use the all-purpose term "murder".
If you don't die
and the lyncher played his cards right they could string you up and either
get away with it or be charged with a lesser crime.
Yes, attempted murder, which also carries a sentence of up to life in
prison.
Why should someone get less punishment because they tried to kill one
person as opposed to another?
Why should someone get less punishment because they used a gun to kill a
person even though they may have the same racist intent as a person who
uses a rope?
This whole concept is moronic.
Lynching also implies a crowd
It does no such thing.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
