Finally some forced logic about the whole hate-crime thing..

If some lesbians beat up a gay guy, is that a hate crime?

Three women identified by their lawyers as lesbians were arraigned yesterday on a hate crime charge for allegedly beating a gay man at the Forest Hills T station in an unusual case that experts say exposes the law’s flawed logic.

“My guess is that no sane jury would convict them under those circumstances, but what this really demonstrates is the idiocy of the hate-crime legislation,” said civil liberties lawyer Harvey Silverglate. “If you beat someone up, you’re guilty of assault and battery of a human being. Period. The idea of trying to break down human beings into categories is doomed to failure.”


This hate crime nonsense was from the start just that: nonsense. Sad that it took something like this to make it obvious. Think the LSM will do much reporting about this? Hell no. It damages the narrative, and as we all know, the narrative is king to the left.

Comments are closed.

  1. Seattle Outcast

    The primary problem is that it was an attempt to create the first “thought crime” as a test bed for more such BS. If this had actually been successful you could have anticipated it being a crime to merely want to go beat the hell out of someone, and then a crime to not fully accepting any and all “diversity”. It would obviously have been expanded to include any number of political viewpoints – AGW, right to birth control, etc….

    Since these sorts of things can’t be proven or disproven, you now have the ultimate vehicle in which to prosecute people at will. Want someone gone from your political arena? Just have them tossed in jail for not accepting a coworker as a full equal because he/she is fat/stupid/clumsy/speaks funny/is slightly brown/too short/has funny last name/dresses odd/wears glasses/whatever.

    Thumb up 3

  2. hist_ed

    I think the late great Mike Royko down hate crime legislation as the law decided that some skulls are more valuable than others when deciding the consequences for cracking them. Hitting a straight white guy on the head with a bat gets you less time than hitting almost anyone else.

    Thumb up 2

  3. Section8

    So are we all equally as opposed to firearm enhancement penalties then?

    Well unless you prefer being bludgeoned to death with a hammer over shot to death to the point where the bludgeoning should be rewarded with less jail time, then yes, most firearm laws are equally ridiculous.

    All these laws come after some news story that gains notoriety, and politicians jump on it to pass stupid laws that diminish the established ones that would have already handled the situation. It sells better for a politician to say they supported a law as useless and for show as it is, rather than not being an opportunist and restraining themselves from jumping on the news story bandwagon. Fact is violent offenders regardless of what law they are punished under get out early due to the insane amount of victimless crimes in this country that flood the prison system. Of course, no one seems to want to tackle that, they just want to keep passing more laws for show. Soon we’ll have a hate X2 law that carries more of a penalty than just hate (whatever the hell that means) and it will be done because all these guys will start getting out eventually to make room for pot smokers.

    Thumb up 2

  4. Seattle Outcast

    Why should using a gun make a crime more serious? In the case of murder, for example, shooting someone is going to be far more merciful than many other methods. Being beaten to death or drowning would be much worse from either the pain or the panic perspective, and who wants to live their last few minutes bleeding out from a knife wound, knowing they are dying?

    Nor is a gun any more intimidating than a large knife or baseball bat. Makes no sense, unless, of course, you are trying to ban guns.

    Thumb up 1

  5. davidst

    Why should using a gun make a crime more serious?

    Considering you could be shot anywhere when someone is pointing a gun at you. The randomness and possibility of great harm from a single shot (even if said harm luckily does not occur) should put a lower bound of attempted murder or manslaughter on firing a gun at someone (excepting self defense of course).

    Since I would much rather someone take a single swing with a bat toward my midsection than randomly fire a gun toward any part of me, I’d prefer to have the incentive of a lesser penalty for the bat (with the penalty escalating quickly for multiple swings or swings aimed at vitals).

    Thumb up 0

  6. Section8

    Since I would much rather someone take a single swing with a bat toward my midsection than randomly fire a gun toward any part of me,

    I’d rather have them fire a gun at me and miss (due to the randomness) than hit me in the middle back with a bat shattering my spine and leaving me paralyzed. The problem is you don’t get to choose the item or method someone is going to use to commit harm to you, and depending on how they attack you, you might not even get the opportunity to defend yourself to alter how successful they would be at harming you. The law should be on intent and how much harm was caused regardless of the weapon. If you get attacked with a bat, and in court you want the judge to go easy on the guy because it wasn’t a gun, and stopped swinging because he was able to take you down after one swing to the mid section instead of 20 swings regardless of the damage the one swing caused, you should have that right. It shouldn’t be written in law though that the guy using bats should get a break because of your preference. It should be your case to plead as a victim to show more mercy if you see fit.

    Thumb up 2

  7. davidst

    If the law wants to make the swing of a bat at someone attempted murder, I’m pretty much alright with that. However, I can see some utility in making it a slightly lower crime in some limited circumstances and am also alright with that if that’s how the law is written. In the case of a gun, I see no way to lower the severity of the crime. It’s got to be attempted murder or attempted manslaughter unless it’s self defense.

    Thumb up 0