Man beat into coma for complimenting other guy's car

[betamanlet]

http://www.kirotv.com/news/news/vigi...ed-coma/nNjhD/

This shows the idiocy of hate crime laws. You think this guy should get punished less than had he hit him over being gay or being non white? This is the most senseless kind of violence there is, but he won't be prosecuted the same as if he had done it for other reasons.

[banner1124]

Really a sad story and a sad statement about people like the perp... but says absolutely nothing about hate crime laws for anyone with any understanding at all about hate crime laws. Seriously beta, you don't have to agree with hate crime laws (hell I'm still on the fence about them), but you really should make an effort to at least educate yourself about the reasons behind them and about what they are really intended for so you can stop making yourself look ridiculous with these types of posts.

[betamanlet]

Really a sad story and a sad statement about people like the perp... but says absolutely nothing about hate crime laws for anyone with any understanding at all about hate crime laws. Seriously beta, you don't have to agree with hate crime laws (hell I'm still on the fence about them), but you really should make an effort to at least educate yourself about the reasons behind them and about what they are really intended for so you can stop making yourself look ridiculous with these types of posts.

Do you really think it's "worse" if someone decided to knock me into a coma because I'm Jewish than if someone knocked me into a coma becuse I complimented his car's rims?

One should be treated more seriously than the other?

[banner1124]

First of all, in this incident the guy happened to hit his head and fall into a coma after being punched... that's a far cry from the attacker "deciding" to knock him into a coma. Secondly, I'm honestly not sure if one should be punished worse than the other, but I understand the reason why hate crimes laws say that one should. The point being that this particular crime says absolutely nothing about the validity of lack thereof of hate crime laws.

[Baltimatt]

Beta--

You seem more concerned about hate crime laws than you do about the poor man who was beaten. I don't really like the concept of hate crimes, but I don't know how often they are even invoked, let alone successfully prosecuted. Yet you seem to like to use any crime as an excuse to bash hate crime laws.

[betamanlet]

First of all, in this incident the guy happened to hit his head and fall into a coma after being punched... that's a far cry from the attacker "deciding" to knock him into a coma. Secondly, I'm honestly not sure if one should be punished worse than the other, but I understand the reason why hate crimes laws say that one should. The point being that this particular crime says absolutely nothing about the validity of lack thereof of hate crime laws.

That's completely irrelevant. If he died, do you think he intended on killing him? Still won't stop a murder charge. So long as he intended to hit him, he is responsible for all of the consequences.

Virtually all crimes are about hate, very few are an exception, like assisted suicide where it's not legal, that's not done out of hate, but most other crimes are, but very few get hate crime enhancements. He CLEARLY hated this guy, hence why he hit him over a COMPLIMENT.. Yet, it will be less seriously treated by the legal system than had he been hit over his race or sexual orientation.

Both still in a coma, yet one gets more severely treated than the other by the justice system which is SUPPOSED To treat people equally. But it doesn't, due to the VERY LAW you support.

[Mom49of4]

beta, you really do not care about the victim.

[Baltimatt]

Beta--

If you actually read what Banner wrote, he said he was on the fence about such laws, not that he supported them.

And again, how many times are hate crime laws invoked, and how often are they successfully prosecuted?

[betamanlet]

beta, you really do not care about the victim.

Do a lot of the posters here not care about the victims of other crimes like the AZ taco bell sohoting that have been buried by the media? Does the media not care about the victim?

Do you think I'm happpy this person was knocked into a coma by some idiot, who has prior convictions for domestic abuse?

Do people not care about Trayvon because they are focusing on the SYG law instead of him?

Why do I suddenly "not care about the victim" while others get a pass?

[betamanlet]

Beta--

If you actually read what Banner wrote, he said he was on the fence about such laws, not that he supported them.

And again, how many times are hate crime laws invoked, and how often are they successfully prosecuted?

Every time I hear about them, they are. Wasn't it successful in the Mcdonalds beating in Baltimore county?

[banner1124]

That's completely irrelevant. If he died, do you think he intended on killing him? Still won't stop a murder charge. So long as he intended to hit him, he is responsible for all of the consequences.

Of course that's true, but that doesn't change the fact that you grossly mischaracterized the nature of the actions. You place intent where such intent is not known and it's just dishonest... I don't like dishonesty sorry.

Virtually all crimes are about hate, very few are an exception, like assisted suicide where it's not legal, that's not done out of hate, but most other crimes are, but very few get hate crime enhancements. He CLEARLY hated this guy, hence why he hit him over a COMPLIMENT.. Yet, it will be less seriously treated by the legal system than had he been hit over his race or sexual orientation.

Do you have any idea what hate actually is? You obviously don't when you say something so stupid like virtually all crimes are about hate. Just because he punched this guy over a compliment (if that's truly the only words that were exchanged between the two) that doesn't equate to him hating the guy... can't you see that? You do realize that in the past crimes like this would routinely get harsher sentencing by judges based soley on the heinous nature of the crime. Similar crimes already get different degrees of punishment based on the reasoning behind them. Again, I'm not going to get into the whole hate-crime reasonings and basis and all that becuase I, as well as many other posters, have gone over this with you again and again and we might as well be talking to a brick wall because you either can't understand or just don't want to.

Both still in a coma, yet one gets more severely treated than the other by the justice system which is SUPPOSED To treat people equally. But it doesn't, due to the VERY LAW you support.

Again, similar crimes have always been treated differently based on circumstances but you only have a problem with it now? Or maybe you just don't understand that? Also, you're either a liar or are unable to comprehend what I post when you claim that this is the "VERY LAW I support" when I clearly posted that I was still on the fence about hate crime laws. Just because I understand something doesn't mean I support it... good freaking grief your dishonesty is astonishing.

[Jeebus]

From his Facebook profile picture, the perp looks to be a white Italian guy on steroids.

Where is the "hate" crime you are alleging, beta?

[banner1124]

Do a lot of the posters here not care about the victims of other crimes like the AZ taco bell sohoting that have been buried by the media? Does the media not care about the victim?

Do you think I'm happpy this person was knocked into a coma by some idiot, who has prior convictions for domestic abuse?

Do people not care about Trayvon because they are focusing on the SYG law instead of him?

Why do I suddenly "not care about the victim" while others get a pass?

Because others don't troll the internet looking for stories like this so they can spam the board with topic after topic in order to make some silly point (which is usually wrong) or to whine about something. You post and whine and b***h and moan with such regularity that one must assume that you generally don't give a rat's arse about the content of the stories that you post but are merely using them as a means to make whatever silly point it is you're trying to make.

[betamanlet]

How is it dishonest, very few crimes resulting in serious injury or death ever were intended to cause it. There was a fight outside of a bar where I grew up, many years ago, where the son of some local bigwig was killed in a fight. He fell and hit his head and died, and thus the crime charged was far more serious than assault, despite not intending on killing him.

If the guy in a coma were dead right now, would you say i was being dishonest if "Man beaten to death for complimenting man's car" or even better "man beaten to death for making a homosexual pass on another man" if he got hit, and fell and cracked his head open and died? You'd say I was being dishonest? Something tells me you wouldn't be trying to downplay the actions of the attacker.

[betamanlet]

From his Facebook profile picture, the perp looks to be a white Italian guy on steroids.

Where is the "hate" crime you are alleging, beta?

I'm not, other than almost all crimes are hate crimes. Treat all assaults the same.

[Jeebus]

Similar crimes already get different degrees of punishment based on the reasoning behind them.

Although I'm not really following beta on his "hate crime" angle here, I do agree with him that hate crime protection for certain people is unnecessary and should be abandoned.

If I stab you because I don't like the color of your shirt, the crime is assault with a deadly weapon and/or attempted murder.

Why should there be any additional charge if my reason was the color of your skin?

The crime is the same, regardless of motive.

Punishing "thought" is ridiculous.

In addition, it (IMHO) violates the EPC of the 14th Amendment by creating a separate, unequal level of protection for certain officially Govt-recognized citizens.

[banner1124]

Although I'm not really following beta on his "hate crime" angle here, I do agree with him that hate crime protection for certain people is unnecessary and should be abandoned.

If I stab you because I don't like the color of your shirt, the crime is assault with a deadly weapon and/or attempted murder.

Why should there be any additional charge if my reason was the color of your skin?

The crime is the same, regardless of motive.

Punishing "thought" is ridiculous.

In addition, it (IMHO) violates the EPC of the 14th Amendment by creating a separate, unequal level of protection for certain officially Govt-recognized citizens.

One of the reasons behind such hate crime laws is the fact that crimes agaisnt certain people simply because of who they are was becoming and epidemic, and in some cases crimes agianst certain people were marginalized because of who the victim was. I'm not saying that the solution that was developed is a perfect one, or even the right one. Hell, if there'd been a rash of "attacking people cause I don't like their shirt color crimes" who's to say there wouldn't be some special consideration in the law because of that? There has always been consideration of intent when sentencing crimes it's just that it was kind of the norm that certain intent really got zero recognition. It's just such a complex issue and I hate to see it marginalized and overly simplified by people like beta. Hell, based on the reasoning (if you wanna call it that) that beta is presenting there should be no such thing as different degrees of murder. After all, murder is murder is murder right? What does it matter why or what the perpetrator's intent was?

[banner1124]

I'm not, other than almost all crimes are hate crimes. Treat all assaults the same.

There you go again with that "all crimes are hate crimes" nonsense. Sorry, but saying something stupid like that over and over again doesn't make it true.

[Smokey 1]

One of the reasons behind such hate crime laws is the fact that crimes agaisnt certain people simply because of who they are was becoming and epidemic, and in some cases crimes agianst certain people were marginalized because of who the victim was.

Do you have numbers to back that up? Are or were there more white on minority assaults than the other way around?

I thought the hate crime laws were there because an attack on a demographic group was considered an attack on the entire group and left an atmosphere of fear in that community. I guess I was wrong.

[banner1124]

Do you have numbers to back that up? Are or were there more white on minority assaults than the other way around?

I thought the hate crime laws were there because an attack on a demographic group was considered an attack on the entire group and left an atmosphere of fear in that community. I guess I was wrong.

No you weren't wrong, it's just that that wasn't the only reason behind the legislation. Honestly, I don't have numbers to back up my assertion though I could probably do some research. However, I know with what I saw with my own eyes as I'm sure we all do. The term gay bashing exists for a reason you know. The whole point being that first hate crime legislation is a far more complex thing that beta makes it out to be, and second that the story he posted has absolutely nothing to do with hate crimes or in any way makes a statement about it as beta claims.