Posted on 02/03/2006 4:19:01 AM PST by Crystal Allen
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/02/03/attack_at_gay_bar_leaves_3_injured/
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
Please...allow me to be the first...
http://www.rathergood.com/gaybar/
No, it's not homosexual violence, which would make people think "gay fighting gay" . It's a mentally unbalanced guy who walked into the bar, asked if it were a gay bar, and when that was confirmed, attacked the patrons. There is no indication that the attacker was gay.
You just saved me some typing time.
You can't help wondering whether these lunatics are put up to this by the left simply to create "victims" and provoke public outrage over "hate crimes" and thereby advance the left's various agenda of "reparations", "affirmative action", "gay marriage", "diversity leadership" and anything else that they can think of to drive wealth transfer and the amoral secularization of society.
That three individuals were badly injured by this man is a tragedy. We should pray for God to heal them in body and soul, that they may come to know Him.
That their injuries will be assuredly exploited by the leftist enemies of a free society is unfortunate indeed.
In Robida's room at his mother's house, police yesterday found homemade posters slurring gays, African-Americans, and Jews; neo-Nazi literature and skinhead paraphernalia; a makeshift coffin; and an empty knife sheath, according to police, prosecutors, and court documents.
But Ted is right on it:
Senator Edward M. Kennedy called the attack a ''sad reminder" of why Congress should pass a bill that would extend the federal law on hate crimes to cover offenses targeting people because of sexual orientation. The current law, which allows federal investigation and prosecution of hate crimes, covers those based on race, religion, and nationality.
I'm not a fan of hate crime legislation for any reason. If someone attacks, whether it's out of greed, jealousy, or hatred, they should be punished. Period.
Yes, their injuries will be exploited in the press. The Globe pants for such tragedies.
Sounds like a hatchet job to me.
He just wanted to ax some questions
Funny the Boston globe article left out the testimony of the bartender.. Here in a Associated Press report from ABC news
[snip]
A bartender at Puzzles Lounge told The Associated Press that the young man, dressed all in black, ordered a drink and asked if Puzzles was a gay bar. He finished his drink shortly after midnight, ordered another, then started attacking people, the bartender said. Three were hospitalized Thursday.
[snip]
Police were searching for 18-year-old Jacob D. Robida, Police Capt. Richard Spirlet said. An arrest warrant sought to charge Robida with assault, attempted murder and civil-rights violations.
What were they diong serving alcohol (hard liquor) to a teenager? Thought you had to be 21?
Shades of Lezzie Borden?
How can you get injured in a slap fight?
"I'm not a fan of hate crime legislation for any reason. If someone attacks, whether it's out of greed, jealousy, or hatred, they should be punished. Period."
I understand your argument and probably agree with it. The action is what matters, not the motive. I was wondering how we reconcile that sentiment with federal terrorism legislation.
The federal law against terrorism makes certain actions a "terrorist act" if they are perpetrated with the motive to achieving some political goal. Under this law, blowing up a Senator's office might just be a state-level "bombing" charge of some sort if the attack was personal, but it would be an act of terrorism under federal law if the goal was to intimidate all senators to achieve some goal.
In this case, we establish a more serious offense depending on the motive of a crime. Of course.. you could argue that terrorism is a more extreme case, but that doesn't really change the legal argument.
Hmmm.... I guess I don't see terrorism as a crime, exactly, but as an act of war. Different rules.
Well I agree that as a concept that foreign terrorism is an act of war.. But what of domestic terrorism? What of OKC or the Unabomber? Also, it _is_ a crime under federal law.
Whether we treat an act of terrorism as a crime or an act of war is the same as asking whether we put the perp on trial or shoot him in the head (or ship him off to gitmo). That there is a federal law against terrorism, though, shows that the government is (in some cases) prepared to treat terrorism as a crime and not an act of war. Or at least, a crime first, and an act of war second.
It is horrible that someone should want to assault someone because of their race or sexual orientation... but I do not think that makes it worse than, say, someone who assaults a child because they are a vile pervert. Look to the crime, not the motivation. Or leave it to the judge and jury who know the facts of the case to decide, not to some knee-jerk hate crime law.
"Or leave it to the judge and jury who know the facts of the case to decide"
Seems about right
You just post this and run away? I smell ozone.
Me, too.
And, isn't this about the third thread about this topic?
I've only seen this thread.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.