WI legislator announces "Blue Lives Matter" hate crime bill !

Until we make share that all lives matter no lives will matter because you will be chasing your tail naming one group after another to matter. If Black Lives Matter then White Lives Matter, and Red Lives Matter, and Straight Lives Matter, and. Veterans Lives Matter, and StaightbLivescMatter, and Native American Lives matter, and Orange Haired Peoples Lives matter, ...... See how stupid saying that one set of lives natter more than others? That us what BLM. us saying when get shout Black Lives Matter they are saying that Only Blacks lives matter. That is racist don,t you know?

 

Well of course. But is it not also illegal to target anyone with intent to harm, do malice or murder? If so then why do other groups need hate crime laws?

If I had my way all hate crime legislation would be wiped away because frankly no murder should be more special than another just because of skin color of the victim or perps. Dead is dead.

 

I have to wonder if people who like to counter with "All Lives Matter" actually believe this and practice it, and aren't just that saying that because black people thought it up.

 

This pic says it all. F*ck this bill. What a knee jerk reaction. It's normal to have a discussion about how we're policed. Copsuckers and Cophaters be damned.

 

Hate crime laws are common sense, as there are a number of laws that determine penalty based on the danger a criminal poses to society. Someone violently attacking a neighbor in a heated dispute is not the same as someone looking for the closest person that matches description x to attack. That person is a much greater danger specifically due to the scope/range of his/her targets.

The latter.

 

MMM....dont know if thats the right way to go about things. Percieved danger sounds good, but say you have a 75 year old Woman who blows a stopsign or something...should she get double the penalty for it than the 20 year old?

Afterall, older people have diminished abilities, and reaction times and pose a greater danger on the road. Would people be ok with this? Or would this cross some line?


Myself, I dont believe in punishing the perceptions, just the crime. This Blue Lives Matter sounds great and all...but totally unnecessary, as we have penalties on the books already.

 

Car accidents are accidents. Whether or not there should be driver's tests for elderly folks is another topic entirely lol. I'm talking about intentional assaults, and how certain individuals pose a greater risk to society than others in that regard.

 

White lives matter.

 

Strawman. At least, Blue Lives Matter is a nonsensical rebuttal to Black Lives Matter, since Blue is not a skin color/race, but an occupation.

As far as I am concerned, I am sick and tired of these nonsense arguments. White Lives in the grand scheme of things do not matter. Nor do black. Yellow. Brown. None of them.

We're a speck of dust floating around a ball of plasma suspended in endless annihilation.

And people are arguing that one speck of dust is more important then the rest?

Typical.

How about we adhere with the constitution and take power back from the state so state agents cannot summarily execute civilians of the union without due cause?

 

I know theres a difference, sure..but you are talking about being ok with a higher standard of punishment for perception. This is far reaching and is more than just intentional assaults. Not sure we should be setting the bar into mindset territory for anything myself.

We have punishments on the books for everything...why not just use them? Does it really matter if one person draws a swastika on a wall and the other guy draws a penis? It's vandalism plain and simple.

 

Not when they pander to the Republican constituency. It is kind of like how Republicans are for individual freedom unless of course it is freedoms they don't like.

 

Getting an education matters.
Not having a baby before you graduate matters.
Only blacks and liberals with white guilt syndrome care what color you are.

 

Well, I don't really prefer to operate under a premise that says symbols have no meaning, and everything is just scribble. I do think that certain members of society are generally more dangerous than others, and I'm not just talking about perception. If someone goes out and attacks white people specifically because they're white... that person is a greater threat to society than someone who assaults say... a family member in a spat of rage. So no, all assault is not assault. Imagine if we treated attempted murder as just as assault, being that the murder wasn't actually carried out.

 

Sure, I get that. On that example one is premeditated and another is in a fit of rage...arent those going to be handled differently already when it comes time to sentence? Why would we need yet another layer on top of it, like the Skin Color?

Just seems we're getting too many layers to me. Some would disagree, and thats cool.

 

Not seeing a problem here. If we can pass laws to allow for harsher sentences for those who assault railroad conductors, why not apply the same line of reasoning for law enforcement.

 

I still think it depends on the situation and damage, but I would support maximum jail times being increased for assaults on police officers and then leaving it to the discretion of the judge. For instance I don't think that someone who likely shoves a police officer should get life, but I would be open to many years behind bars for someone that punches a police officer or hurls objects at them.

This isn't just limited to BLM. There are many groups out there (right and left) that have no fear of law enforcement.

Many BLM leaders have denounced the attacks. By the way, there is no hierarchy structure for BLM. Much like the Tea Party, they are just independent groups, so to label ALL BLM as a terrorist organization is pretty silly IMO.

 

I'd be interested in knowing what state has the lightest penalties for crimes against police officers. In that example alone we'd probably find that such a crime will get you a much stiffer penalty than a crime against another citizen. I don't think more hate crime legislation is the answer.

 

A crime is a crime. Let's stop adding partitions to our judicial system to make people feel better.

 

And on that optimistic note ...

 

Dispute it. Go on. Please.

 

I don't want to dispute it. I just thought it was a pretty depressing post.

 

`
....and I thought I was pretty sardonic......