Wamp Votes Against "Unnecessry" Hate Crimes Bill

[CMF Newsman]

Congressman Zach Wamp voted against the "Hate Crimes" legislation that passed the House of Representatives Thursday.

He said, "Hate crimes legislation is not even needed because right now, crimes of violence - all crimes of violence - should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law."

"To separate these crimes into categories of people is an injustice to the notion of equality under the law for everyone. There are laws that ensure that any violent crime against anyone else should be prohibited and prosecuted, and we should stand strongly against it."

"Frankly, if we start separating people into classes like this, some people will then become victims of injustice. It's really just a bad idea. Frankly, it's un-American."

www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_106784.asp

[Dreamwebber]

I have to say I agree with Wamp on this issue when it comes to murder. If you murder someone because they are gay or murder someone for no reason you still committed murder and you should be charged to the fullest extent of the law regardless.

I am torn on non violent crimes though for ex burning crosses in someone's lawn because of the color of their skin. What is the punishment for that? I personally don't know what the charge is when someone does that....do the police blow it off? or is their a law against burning a cross in someone's lawn? Is the burning the cross a threat for future murder? If symbols are used for ex. the burning cross, or nazi symbols graffitied on someone's house considered more serious threats to some shouldn't they be considered "hate crimes"? I mean someone could toliet paper my house because they hated me...or it might mean they like me I wouldn't know but, TP wouldn't be anything I could link to a hate crime based on my religion, race, or lifestyle.

The main problem I see with "hate crimes" it would have to be narrowly defined in law. Other wise we would see in court hate crimes cases due to someone having blonde hair, being overweight/too thin, big ears, speech impediments etc.

[osrb]

hate crimes = Thought Police

[bernardjenkins]

this is just thought control, thought crime legislation. this is about controling everything that is heard and seen.

[voxpopuli]

For once, I agree with Zach on something.

It was bound to happen sooner or later.

[traveler]

Ok folks, who here is paying attention to what is happening in Congress. Before the last election there were several on this forum who were decrying the fact that the Patriot Act was too intrusive into people's personal lives. Now, what do you think about a Congressional effort by the new ruling party to control and monitor the way you think?

As the saying goes, you should be careful what you ask for...you might not like the results.

Zach voted correctly on this bill.

[bernardjenkins]

and the president has said that he will veto it.

[Gary]

Hey Traveler, I'm not sure what your complaint is, since everyone in this thread has agreed with Zach.

[traveler]

I was just pointing out that people need to be paying attention to what is happening in Congress right now. I seldom have a problem with the way Zach votes.

My concern is the direction Congress is heading and the irony of what some of the agenda is relative to intrusion into our lives, etc.

[Dreamwebber]

My concern is the direction Congress is heading and the irony of what some of the agenda is relative to intrusion into our lives, etc.

Why would it be intrusion into our lives if a crime had not been committed? That doesn't make sense to me. It would have been a hate "crime" bill....not a "hate" bill. If you don't committ a crime you couldn't be tried for a "hate crime". Therefore I don't see a similarity between the Patriot act and a hate crime bill. Either way I would be against both. They just need to enforce the laws for crimes that they already have IMO

[RuneDeer]

TCrash, we need your knowledge here. Burning a cross on someone's lawn would constitute ... what? I'd figure criminal trespass, vandalism, ?terroristic threats? Public nuisance? It would seem to come under a lot of different headings, even violation of outdoor burning laws. I don't like "hate crime" legislation, either. As osrb said, it's the thought police, for sure. I've heard stories about someone being assaulted by a person of a different ethnic persuasion, and when the victim cried out an ethnic slur as they struck back, they were charged with a hate crime, while the instigator was not. That could be an urban legend ... I sincerely hope so.

[tcrashfx]

39-14-304. Reckless burning.

(a) A person commits reckless burning who:

(1) Recklessly starts a fire on the land, building, structure or personal property of another; or

(2) Starts a fire on the person's own land, building, structure or personal property and recklessly allows the fire to escape and burn the property of another.

(b) Reckless burning is a Class A misdemeanor.

[Acts 1989, ch. 591, § 1; 1991, ch. 46, § 1.]

I thought they passed an "Anti-cross burning" law several years ago, but I could not find it. Under this law as long as you can show that you were not reckless when you ignited the cross, you should be OK.

[bernardjenkins]

There is a case in Tn now where a cross was burned in a black man yard; may have been a preacher but it is being looked into as a hate crime.

[stray]

Was it burned recklessly or carefully?

[bernardjenkins]

I'm sure it was high octane!

[stray]

Best to use kerosene. Just saying.

[Deleted]

Ah, the voice of experience.

and I'm still in love with the girl in your signature, Stray. She's sooooo cute. It's the eyes, going so quickly from total infatuation to what did I ever see in this turkey?

[WorlockX]

Stray would be correct. Gasoline, while volatile, won't burn long enough to ignite the wood.

While Congressman Wamp voted correctly, I still find myself wondering why the Democratically controlled Congress feels a need for more hate crime legislation. I mean, haven't they already defined enough acts as hate crimes? I don't need Big Brother watching my every move and listening for every word, looking for hate crimes. Enough is enough.

[stray]

Dude...at your job, they DO watch everything you do and listening for every word...

[WorlockX]

Why do you think I vent on the drive home? It's not all about firing anti-tank rounds at the moron drivers. It's about all the idiotic, assbackwards, bullshit at work. But then, I do realize that logic and sense are to be turned off, as soon as I pass my door key across the reader at the front door.

[plasticone]

Imposing additional penalties because of what some people think you are thinking at the time you commit the crime are ridiculous. You should be punished for your actions, not for the reasons you did what you did.

If you slap someone you should be punished for assault because you slapped them. You should not receive different punishments if you slapped them because of the color of their hair or eyes or skin or what they were wearing or because you had a bad day.

[AHPO]

worlockx said:

Why do you think I vent on the drive home? It's not all about firing anti-tank rounds at the moron drivers. It's about all the idiotic, assbackwards, bullshit at work. But then, I do realize that logic and sense are to be turned off, as soon as I pass my door key across the reader at the front door.

You must work for Eddie Phillips in East Ridge.