hmm...dunno...hard to say if you weren't there...I've seen some hard ole grannies in this world...
I don't care what you say, z0sa, I ain't takin on no 71 year old grannies with canes. Sorta look on it as my duty to retreat in a situation like that, and not to escalate. Overpowering grannies ain't my thing.
retreating isn't the same as getting dominated. if she forcibly prevented you from retreating, perhaps there would be something to that.
does it make you more of a he-man to throw down on granny, hemann?
[QUOTE=ChumpDumper;5743604]Well it seems the attack wouldn't have happened had the victim not been gay. I'm not saying the law is a great one or should even exist, but since it does exist I can't think why its application here could be dismissed out of hand.
Is it because it's an old lady?[/QUOTE]
Always, always, always with the attempt to put words in someone else's mouth. Always the presumption in the argument, that the other person's reasoning is stupidly flawed. You aren't as smart as you believe, and other people aren't as stupid as you tell yourself they are, Chump. You're a disturbed person.
No... it's not because she's an old lady. The hate crime statutes weren't made for a situation like this, and you know it. The crime was assaulting someone with a cane, and there are assault laws to take care of that. If the crime becomes saying something mean to certain people, and hurting their feelings, it becomes problematic.
It sounds like the old lady was mad because her grandson was moving in next door. I'm guessing she doesn't like the fact that the grandson is gay, and she is trying to blame the neighbor for "corrupting" him. (Just guessing, I know. But that's the way it looks.) Charge her with assault, slap a restraining order on her, and if she breaks it throw the book at her.
I actually heard the term "hate crime" brought up at the scene of an auto accident earlier this year. (Another one of those times where I wish i was making it up.) It's a meme that is getting a lot of traction, and it's already being used well beyond its intent. Social engineering is more art than science. We have to be bright enough to make some modifications, when it obviously gets off the tracks.
GSH committing a butthurt crime
Actually, that's why I put it in the form of a question. Your reasoning is far from clear here. You don't notice that because you're pretty emotional in your responses to me today. It's alright.
Always, always, always with the attempt to put words in someone else's mouth. Always the presumption in the argument, that the other person's reasoning is stupidly flawed. You aren't as smart as you believe, and other people aren't as stupid as you tell yourself they are, Chump. You're a disturbed person.
I'm not sure the statutes weren't made for situation like this, right or wrong. I mean, were it a 40 year old man with a cane doing the beating for the same reason in the same manner, doing much more damage or even killing the victim, would you still say it doesn't apply?No... it's not because she's an old lady. The hate crime statutes weren't made for a situation like this, and you know it. The crime was assaulting someone with a cane, and there are assault laws to take care of that. If the crime becomes saying something mean to certain people, and hurting their feelings, it becomes problematic.
It sounds like the old lady was mad because her grandson was moving in next door. I'm guessing she doesn't like the fact that the grandson is gay, and she is trying to blame the neighbor for "corrupting" him. (Just guessing, I know. But that's the way it looks.) Charge her with assault, slap a restraining order on her, and if she breaks it throw the book at her.
You really are pathetic. You say you don't think hate crime statutes need to exist, and then argue the other side. You're one of those people who just love to argue. I'll give you a hint - nobody likes those kinds of people.
I'm not going to play stupid games with you, Chump. If you don't believe in anything one way or the other, you're just here jerking off to an audience.
I'm saying the statute does exist, so DAs are going to apply it. Sure, neither of us think it's a good law, but you're being unrealistic in thinking it will never be used because you don't like it.
You're being very immature here. I'm not even trying to make you dance like a puppet, but you seem to believe it's your role now.I'm not going to play stupid games with you, Chump. If you don't believe in anything one way or the other, you're just here jerking off to an audience.
Sorry.
you thought it, you said it, you laughed; completely self sufficient unit of hilarity.sounds like you want granny to throw you down
on the bed
I can understand Assault with a deadly weapon combined with classing it as a "hate crime" having a life sentence, but really now... classing a cane as a deadly weapon?
My fists are more deadly than her cane.
Yes, but the article stated:I wonder if they are classing the cane as a deadly weapon, or if that is artistic journalism.According to Texas law, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon carries a maximum 20-year prison term. However, as a hate crime, the possible sentence increases to life behind bars.
So do I.
Hate is hate.
Why is it more hateful if against someone you hate who is a protected, special class?
I think they love it, until they get caught on the wrong side of the stick.
I think you didn't read the thread at all.
he almost never does. it's hard to get used to. this time he fastened on a previous page, so hats off for reading a little bit, I guess...
Last edited by Winehole23; 03-30-2012 at 10:58 PM.
(Boont Amber Ale)
Last edited by Winehole23; 03-30-2012 at 10:59 PM.
Sorry you think that, but that's your bias. I simply responded to post 30 before reading the rest, and not very many so called "blue team" had responded yet.
Think whatever you want. It's just one more piece of evidence that you are full of bull , or something worse.
WH, CD...
Would you two reread post #69, and reconsider what you said about me not reading the thread?
post 30 is on a previous page, is it not?
Yes, but you were agreeing I don't read the threads, and suggested I only read a little.
Admit it: you're not a big reader. Not on this forum. You expose yourself nearly every time.
You're almost as bad as DarrinS, but your excuses are much funnier. So hats off for that . .
look, I can believe you read a little bit WC but goddamn. you don't even read the you post sometimes.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
