I have no idea.

No thanks. Don't care.

I'll be shocked if there are mass protests for Officer Bauer that shut down parts of the Loop. Even though the circumstances that led to Bauer's death are infinitely more enraging than McDonald's and 10,000 Laquan McDonald's aren't worth one Paul Bauer.

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

Then you can stop talking about what actually is used to justify hate crime laws.

Then you can stop talking about what actually is used to justify hate crime laws.

lol @ cover up

there was nothing to cover up. a drug addict, common criminal picked the wrong cop to wield a knife at and got put down much to benefit of broader society. there's not a lot more to it than that.

Have a terrible night and die in MANY fires.

They may have the power to do so because of that but it doesn't mean they are passed because of that. I mean, your link literally has Mathew Shepard on the first page. Are you making the case that the illegality of attacks on gay people is because of slavery and attempting to remove the leftover effects of it?

Of course the concept of civil rights can trace origins back to things like slavery, which makes that part of the discussion, but hate crimes, even with it being a flawed idea, is clearly about the effect that hate crimes have on the targeted groups and not about some sort of attempt to remove remnants of slavery by making it illegal to target gay people to assault.

Now he's back to motive again huh?

That's literally what the courts reason, BRick. That was a circuit court decision upholding the federal hate crime law passed in 2009. The court even quoted legislation referencing "badges and incidents".

So yeah, stop talking about why hate crime laws exist and are upheld.

That is what gives them the ABILITY to do it. It's not the reason.

They do the same all the time with the Commerce Clause. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich

Does the federal government ban marijuana to "regulate commerce"? No, but they do have that power because of it. They do it for another misguided notion that they can protect people and the country from danger by doing it.

18 U.S.C. § 249(a)(1). We refer to this as the “racial violence provision.” This is
the portion of the Act under which Hatch was charged and convicted.
Congress explicitly justified the racial violence provision under its
Thirteenth Amendment badges-and-incidents authority:
For generations, the institutions of slavery and
involuntary servitude were defined by the race, color,
and ancestry of those held in bondage. Slavery and
involuntary servitude were enforced, both prior to and
after the adoption of the 13th amendment to the
Constitution of the United States, through widespread
public and private violence directed at persons because
of their race, color, or ancestry, or perceived race, color,
or ancestry. Accordingly, eliminating racially motivated
violence is an important means of eliminating, to the
extent possible, the badges, incidents, and relics of
slavery and involuntary servitude.

Don't you mean "intent"? Or did you finally start to comprehend the difference?

Here is Congress explicitly stating they want to eliminate racially-motivated violence because they want to eliminate "badges and incidents"



Not even reformatting the PDF text because you're being such a knob about this. You were wrong about why our government passes and upholds hate crime legislation.

So then how do you explain the provisions against gender and sexual orientation?

I mean, you could even go as far as asking why it isn't one specific race that was targeted if it is specifically about eliminating the badges, incidents, and relics of slavery and involuntary servitude.

Equal parts insulation against equal protection litigation, generally trying to do something they believe is good, and standard congressional overreach.

Exactly. So not just trying to fix the ills of slavery. Now, in one subsection it may very well be the reason but the larger reason for hate crimes is not that it is fixing the lasting effects of slavery.

So, why does the government ban marijuana? Is it to "regulate commerce" or is that simply what gives them the right to do it for other reasons?

Why are you trying to shift the conversation to marijuana? Congress explicitly stated why they were enacting the hate crime legislation. Is it because that declared purpose doesn't align with what you've said up-and-down it actually is? Have a nice rest of your day.

Biden is doing a GOOD job.

There is not a damned thing wrong with people who are bull shitters.

You guys having fun here today? Can we post about the dead cop or the killer?

Have a terrible night and die in MANY fires.

Preach!

Hate crime laws: No.
Enhanced DUI punishments: No.
Sex Offender Registries: Yes, but in the concept of "lock them up because they are a danger to society" we would be doing much more than a registry to them.

We did. Your apprentice is trying to impress you again. Hey why you should do while we're waiting is start a thread about Shawn White that flag disrespect son of a bitch.

Have a terrible night and die in MANY fires.

I've received Nigerian scam emails that are easier to read and comprehend.

Shomari K. Legghette, charged in the murder of CPD Cmdr. Paul Bauer

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.