Washington rids itself of sexist language

[forgetful]

Do you call our POTUS mixed race or only now in this case?  Sounds like how "white Hispanic" came out of nowhere.    Last I checked, both were charged for murder.

Makes you wonder about the WWII veteran killed the other night.  Maybe those punks just didn't like WWII vets.


Link works fine for me.  Duncan, OK newspaper where the crime happened.

Your link is still broken, but here is another in case you want one from Duncan.

http://duncanbanner.com/breaking-news/x865761251/DA-Hate-crime-not-applicable-in-drive-by-shooting

Obama is of mixed race.  No one will claim otherwise.  Often, as all these articles do, a person of mixed race is referred to as african american as they qualify as such for government purposes.  Not sure what that has to do with this discussion.

Yes, both African American teens were charged with murder, but the one pulling the trigger is not the one that made the racist comments.

Also, as I note, the one who made the racial comments is dating a white girl.  Clearly the hate runs thick with him.  

I don't think you understand the concepts of random senseless violence and crimes of opportunity.  

20.9% of all hate crimes are committed by African Americans, I don't think the FBI automatically stops at murder and says they won't make charges there.  You will have a hard time finding articles, because right now, the current case saturates the hits.  I'll stick with the FBI statistics.  To ignore them is being stubborn and forcing things to fit your agenda.

You have convinced yourself that there is something to be upset about here.  You said if the races were flipped, everyone would be up in arms.  I cited a case from earlier this year that fit this description and people weren't up in arms.  

You said the one who made the racist comments pulled the trigger.  I showed you comments from the DA saying that was not the case.  

You said that the driver was of mixed race, I showed you that was incorrect.

You said.  "In fact, more than hard, darn near impossible where someone is charged with a racial hate crime as a minority."  I provided with FBI statistics indicating otherwise.

Frankly, you have very little dog in this fight.  The answer is very simple.  Sharpton and others are not involved in this case, because the system worked and the right people are being punished.  Quite simple...no conspiracy theory necessary. 

[GGGG]

Heh...that is quite the smackdown. 

[Hards Alumni]

Your link is still broken, but here is another in case you want one from Duncan.

http://duncanbanner.com/breaking-news/x865761251/DA-Hate-crime-not-applicable-in-drive-by-shooting

Obama is of mixed race.  No one will claim otherwise.  Often, as all these articles do, a person of mixed race is referred to as african american as they qualify as such for government purposes.  Not sure what that has to do with this discussion.

Yes, both African American teens were charged with murder, but the one pulling the trigger is not the one that made the racist comments.

Also, as I note, the one who made the racial comments is dating a white girl.  Clearly the hate runs thick with him.  

I don't think you understand the concepts of random senseless violence and crimes of opportunity.  

20.9% of all hate crimes are committed by African Americans, I don't think the FBI automatically stops at murder and says they won't make charges there.  You will have a hard time finding articles, because right now, the current case saturates the hits.  I'll stick with the FBI statistics.  To ignore them is being stubborn and forcing things to fit your agenda.

You have convinced yourself that there is something to be upset about here.  You said if the races were flipped, everyone would be up in arms.  I cited a case from earlier this year that fit this description and people weren't up in arms.  

You said the one who made the racist comments pulled the trigger.  I showed you comments from the DA saying that was not the case.  

You said that the driver was of mixed race, I showed you that was incorrect.

You said.  "In fact, more than hard, darn near impossible where someone is charged with a racial hate crime as a minority."  I provided with FBI statistics indicating otherwise.

Frankly, you have very little dog in this fight.  The answer is very simple.  Sharpton and others are not involved in this case, because the system worked and the right people are being punished.  Quite simple...no conspiracy theory necessary. 

Exactly.  Chicos, you just don't understand. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

Your link is still broken, but here is another in case you want one from Duncan.

http://duncanbanner.com/breaking-news/x865761251/DA-Hate-crime-not-applicable-in-drive-by-shooting

Obama is of mixed race.  No one will claim otherwise.  Often, as all these articles do, a person of mixed race is referred to as african american as they qualify as such for government purposes.  Not sure what that has to do with this discussion.

Yes, both African American teens were charged with murder, but the one pulling the trigger is not the one that made the racist comments.

Also, as I note, the one who made the racial comments is dating a white girl.  Clearly the hate runs thick with him.  

I don't think you understand the concepts of random senseless violence and crimes of opportunity.  

20.9% of all hate crimes are committed by African Americans, I don't think the FBI automatically stops at murder and says they won't make charges there.  You will have a hard time finding articles, because right now, the current case saturates the hits.  I'll stick with the FBI statistics.  To ignore them is being stubborn and forcing things to fit your agenda.

You have convinced yourself that there is something to be upset about here.  You said if the races were flipped, everyone would be up in arms.  I cited a case from earlier this year that fit this description and people weren't up in arms.  

You said the one who made the racist comments pulled the trigger.  I showed you comments from the DA saying that was not the case.  

You said that the driver was of mixed race, I showed you that was incorrect.

You said.  "In fact, more than hard, darn near impossible where someone is charged with a racial hate crime as a minority."  I provided with FBI statistics indicating otherwise.

Frankly, you have very little dog in this fight.  The answer is very simple.  Sharpton and others are not involved in this case, because the system worked and the right people are being punished.  Quite simple...no conspiracy theory necessary.  

Interesting, I hardly ever hear any news outlet say "America's first mixed race president", yet I can find over 297,000,000 google hits that says he is America's first black or African American President.  Weird.  Even weirder, on the White House official site it says he is the first African American to hold the position...someone better get to changing the internets.  I don't deny that he is of mixed race, but that is not how he is identified, which is why I asked how you identify him and how, conveniently, you seem to change your description of this dirtbag killer of Mr. Lane.  I find it interesting.  You identify mixed race Obama as an African American president, but this killer of mixed race.  Very interesting....since we're talking about "agendas".  Hmm.

On the FBI stuff, apparently I still haven't explained myself well, so let's give it a final go.   The crime statistics I asked you why do you think there are problems with some of them and pointed out the murder ones in particular around race.  You came back with the FBI statistics.  Here's the problem, the FBI Hate Crime statistics are massively flawed and folks on all sides, including the FBI admit this.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/15/justice/hate-crime-statistics

For example, did you know there was ONE hate crime for an entire year in Mississippi...ONE.  Really?  The Southern Poverty Law Center (very liberal group) is furious at this, as they should be.  The stat is a joke.  The reason is that hate crimes are totally dependent upon local police reporting.  In other areas of the country, specifically where they have hate crime units, the numbers are off the charts.  Now, on the flip side of all this is the argument that minorities over index on crime, so says the FBI.  More crime per person than their portion of population, by quite a bit they over index.  Yet with hate crimes, that doesn't appear.  Why?  Some in law enforcement will tell you it is because of political pressure not to label crimes committed by minorities against whites as a hate crime.  So you have both sides of this argument feeling the hate crime stats are crap, which they are.  There is agreement, where there seldom is.

Not entirely surprising, either, since Eric Holder's response about whether whites, etc would be protected as a class in hate crimes and his response is that it is based on history.  Until that is fixed, and everyone is treated equally, there will be a problem.  Would love to hear your take on his answers any why he feels only history seems to count in categorizing a hate crime.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/YOABBn5Tnm0" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/YOABBn5Tnm0</a>


Would recommend also reading Hate Crimes: Criminal Law and Identity Politics by NYU Law Professor on the under reporting of hate crimes in this country.

And I'm sorry, we'll just agree to disagree on reverend Al, et al.   Looks like plenty of people starting to agree...I see Yahoo picked up that angle today.  Needs to be talked about.  If we want true racial equality, which we all should strive for, we need to treat these issues equally.  That's the whole point...equality.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Exactly.  Chicos, you just don't understand.  

Says one liberal supporting another liberal's point of view..l AM SHOCKED.  LOL

Maybe a moment of silence today for Delbert might be nice...just a simple thank you to him and his contributions to this country.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/60715/delbert-benton-and-christopher-lane-hate-crimes-show-a-massive-racial-divide-in-america

[Pakuni]

Says one liberal supporting another liberal's point of view..l AM SHOCKED.  LOL

Maybe a moment of silence today for Delbert might be nice...just a simple thank you to him and his contributions to this country.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/60715/delbert-benton-and-christopher-lane-hate-crimes-show-a-massive-racial-divide-in-america

I can think of no greater way to honor Mr. Belton's service to his country and legacy than to exploit his murder for political gain.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Sorry, the laws of this land should be enforced equally.   Isn't that what we are striving for?  When we have laws that only account for historical situations that are somehow "make goods", that's a problem. 

When Holder says a group attacking gay men is a hate crime because they are gay (I agree), but if a group of gay men attacking a white minister who believes in heterosexuality is not (I don't agree), that's a double standard.  So on and so forth on the examples.  His response that you must bring in historical treatment I get, but it cannot be the only standard.  A hate based crime is a hate base crime.  PERIOD.

"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it."
Martin Luther King

[Pakuni]

Sorry, the laws of this land should be enforced equally.   Isn't that what we are striving for?  When we have laws that only account for historical situations that are somehow "make goods", that's a problem. 

When Holder says a group attacking gay men is a hate crime because they are gay (I agree), but if a group of gay men attacking a white minister who believes in heterosexuality is not (I don't agree), that's a double standard.  So on and so forth on the examples.  His response that you must bring in historical treatment I get, but it cannot be the only standard.  A hate based crime is a hate base crime.  PERIOD.

"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it."
Martin Luther King

And what does any of this have to do with Delbert Belton?

Though I do chuckle at the image of a person being attacked for believing in heterosexuality.
I told you (thwack!) there's no such thing (smack!) as heterosexuality (whap!). I was born (smash!) as a result of (pow!) asexual reproduction (splat!).

[GGGG]

I can think of no greater way to honor Mr. Belton's service to his country and legacy than to exploit his murder for political gain.

Amen.  It's what he fought for.

[ATL MU Warrior]

Sorry, the laws of this land should be enforced equally.   Isn't that what we are striving for?  When we have laws that only account for historical situations that are somehow "make goods", that's a problem.  

When Holder says a group attacking gay men is a hate crime because they are gay (I agree), but if a group of gay men attacking a white minister who believes in heterosexuality is not (I don't agree), that's a double standard.  So on and so forth on the examples.  His response that you must bring in historical treatment I get, but it cannot be the only standard.  A hate based crime is a hate base crime.  PERIOD.

"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it."
Martin Luther King

Has this ever actually happened in the history of humanity or is it just the weirdest, most far-fetched example you could think of?

[ChicosBailBonds]

Fun with stats

"Analysis of the 1999 FBI statistics by John Perazzo in 2001 found that white violence against black people was 28 times more likely (1 in 45 incidents) to be labelled as a hate crime than black violence against white people (1 in 1254 incidents)"

Race and crime: a biosocial analysis. Nova Publishers. pp. 44–45.


The problem comes back to the historical argument.  There are actually people out there that argue it may not be racist if you are in the majority because you can't really have a racial crime be committed against you because you are in the majority.  It's absurd, but it exists.  Examples:  Felicia Pratto of UCONN or P.J. Henry of Depaul.   

The two assert...."certain hate crimes against white people are a valid category, that one can 'speak sensibly of', and that while such crimes may be the result of racial prejudice, in a limited definition of the word, they assert do not constitute actual racism per se, because a hate crime against a member of a group that is superior in the alleged and dated power hierarchy by a member of one that is inferior, they believe may not be racist. The concept of racism as understood by a limited number of social scientists and some others, they allege, requires as a fundamental element a superior-to-inferior group-based power relationship, which a hate crime against white people they believe does not have."   

[ChicosBailBonds]

Has this ever actually happened in the history of humanity or is it just the weirdest, most far-fetched example you could think of?

It doesn't matter....the question was asked of Holder and the answer of equality should have been the answer.  If it happened, would the white minister be protected was the question.  Holder's answer...NO.  Mindboggling.  Absolutely mindboggling.  That's a double standard. PERIOD.  It's a hate crime.  PERIOD.  But because historically it had never happened, there is no protection.  ABSURD.

I have two gay men that work for me.  Great guys, fabulous workers, etc.  Now, when our team may go out to a bar for drinks every so often and they loosen up and the words flow, both have disdain for Catholics (they will say this) and "jokingly" hope certain ones die.  They have said they would take a swing at someone in the right situation (one of these guys was a collegiate athlete and would do some serious damage if he punched someone).  I have a fun rebuttal with them about "tolerance", etc and ask why what they are saying is any different than someone that doesn't share their views.  I get their disdain, I get their anger, but are they any more tolerant?  If he did take a swing at someone, say solely for expressing their beliefs, would that be any less a hate crime than some heterosexual dude taking a swing at a gay man?


Reminds me of Spike Lee's famous quote.  "Black people can't be racist"       Sorry Spike, racism can exist with any group of people and hatred in other areas can as well.  To deny that is beyond ridiculous. 

[forgetful]

Fun with stats

"Analysis of the 1999 FBI statistics by John Perazzo in 2001 found that white violence against black people was 28 times more likely (1 in 45 incidents) to be labelled as a hate crime than black violence against white people (1 in 1254 incidents)"

Race and crime: a biosocial analysis. Nova Publishers. pp. 44–45.


The problem comes back to the historical argument.  There are actually people out there that argue it may not be racist if you are in the majority because you can't really have a racial crime be committed against you because you are in the majority.  It's absurd, but it exists.  Examples:  Felicia Pratto of UCONN or P.J. Henry of Depaul.   

The two assert...."certain hate crimes against white people are a valid category, that one can 'speak sensibly of', and that while such crimes may be the result of racial prejudice, in a limited definition of the word, they assert do not constitute actual racism per se, because a hate crime against a member of a group that is superior in the alleged and dated power hierarchy by a member of one that is inferior, they believe may not be racist. The concept of racism as understood by a limited number of social scientists and some others, they allege, requires as a fundamental element a superior-to-inferior group-based power relationship, which a hate crime against white people they believe does not have."   

This is going to largely be an exercise in futility as we have ventured into the realm of statistics, where anyone can argue that that their side has to be correct.  Stats don't include the important aspect of causation.

For instance, you indicate that white violent crimes are more likely to be labeled as hate crimes.  You immediately assign this to some sort of ethnic bias.  You also cited that African Americans are more likely to be involved in violent crimes, implying that they should then also demonstrate a higher incidence of hate crimes.  

This analysis assigns causation without any data to support it.  The higher incidence in African American crime is largely a result of environment.  African Americans are far more likely to live in poverty.  Poverty leads to an increase in violent crime, often in the form of robbery or attacks on individuals more wealthy than them.  This will disproportionately increase the incidence of violent crimes on whites by blacks.  But it has nothing to do with race, as your analysis implies, it has everything to do with wealth, and crimes of opportunity.  

A hate based crime requires that the motive of the attack be solely race.  That is why the majority of hate-crimes involve hate-based organizations such as the KKK or white-supremicists movements, whose fundamental purpose is to direct anger in a racial motivated manner.  These organizations are disproportionately white.

Attacks based on wealth would thus be completely excluded from hate-crimes and we would expect the incidence of hate crimes relative to total violent crimes to be substantially reduced in black on white crimes.  This is what the statistics represent and thus should not be taken a priori to assume some sort of racial bias.  That is a political agenda, not a fact based analysis.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I can think of no greater way to honor Mr. Belton's service to his country and legacy than to exploit his murder for political gain.

I can think of no greater way to honor Mr. Belton's service than to apply the laws of this land equally and stamp out racism by not pretending it exists on one side only and put our heads in the sand.  Otherwise, the problem only continues.

“An analysis of ‘single offender victimization figures’ from the FBI for 2007 finds blacks committed 433,934 crimes against whites, eight times the 55,685 whites committed against blacks. Interracial rape is almost exclusively black on white — with 14,000 assaults on white women by African Americans in 2007. Not one case of a white sexual assault on a black female was found in the FBI study.  Though blacks are outnumbered 5-to-1 in the population by whites, they commit eight times as many crimes against whites as the reverse. By those 2007 numbers, a black male was 40 times as likely to assault a white person as the reverse.”

If we want a color blind society (we should), we need color blind policies (we don't) and we need to address issues equally in policy discussions, the media, etc (we don't).

[forgetful]

I can think of no greater way to honor Mr. Belton's service than to apply the laws of this land equally and stamp out racism by not pretending it exists on one side only and put our heads in the sand.  Otherwise, the problem only continues.

“An analysis of ‘single offender victimization figures’ from the FBI for 2007 finds blacks committed 433,934 crimes against whites, eight times the 55,685 whites committed against blacks. Interracial rape is almost exclusively black on white — with 14,000 assaults on white women by African Americans in 2007. Not one case of a white sexual assault on a black female was found in the FBI study.  Though blacks are outnumbered 5-to-1 in the population by whites, they commit eight times as many crimes against whites as the reverse. By those 2007 numbers, a black male was 40 times as likely to assault a white person as the reverse.”

If we want a color blind society (we should), we need color blind policies (we don't) and we need to address issues equally in policy discussions, the media, etc (we don't).

As I note above, instead of assigning race to this issue, look at this as a function of poverty.

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/badcomm.htm

Also, as to your absurd analogy of a group of gay individuals attacking a priest.  That is not what holder was asked.  He was asked if an individual at a town hall meeting condemned homosexuality and was attacked after that would it be labeled a hate crime.  According to the letter of the law he correctly said no.  Lets change the scenario.  If a nation of islam individual got up at the same town hall meeting and preached about how whites are worthless, greedy, bastards that are immoral outcasts and then was attacked for those comments by a white person it would also not be a hate based crime.

Why?  The motive is not animosity against a group based on race, religion or sexual orientation.  It is motivated by anger at statements made by the individual (not a group as a whole).

In your fictitious example of a group of gays selectively targeting a christian, that would be a hate based crime if the motive was solely related to religious persuasion and the individual was targeted for that purpose.  I assure you if Holder was asked if a hate-based homosexual organization targeted christians, would they be prosecuted as a hate crime.  His answer would be yes.  But that has never happened and will never happen.

[Pakuni]

I can think of no greater way to honor Mr. Belton's service than to apply the laws of this land equally and stamp out racism by not pretending it exists on one side only and put our heads in the sand.  Otherwise, the problem only continues.

“An analysis of ‘single offender victimization figures’ from the FBI for 2007 finds blacks committed 433,934 crimes against whites, eight times the 55,685 whites committed against blacks. Interracial rape is almost exclusively black on white — with 14,000 assaults on white women by African Americans in 2007. Not one case of a white sexual assault on a black female was found in the FBI study.  Though blacks are outnumbered 5-to-1 in the population by whites, they commit eight times as many crimes against whites as the reverse. By those 2007 numbers, a black male was 40 times as likely to assault a white person as the reverse.”

If we want a color blind society (we should), we need color blind policies (we don't) and we need to address issues equally in policy discussions, the media, etc (we don't).

I'm not sure what your point here is, Chico's. Is it your assertion that all crimes committed by a person of one race against a person of another race is, by definition, a "hate" crime?
Frankly, this and your assaulted minister scenario show that you have no idea what the hate crime statute says or its intent.

Legally speaking, a crime becomes a hate crime when the act is committed "because of  the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person."
Now, what evidence is there that Delbert Belton was murdered because he was white?

Likewise with your minister. He wasn't make-believe assaulted because of his race, gender, sexual orientation or even religion. He was make-believe assaulted because of his anti-homosexual views. That's still wrong. It's still a crime. The perpetrators still ought to be prosecuted. But it's not a hate crime. Hate crime statutes don't deal with someone's opinions ... only race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, etc.
And, no, being anti-gay is not a person's religion.

[ChicosBailBonds]

In your fictitious example of a group of gays selectively targeting a christian, that would be a hate based crime if the motive was solely related to religious persuasion and the individual was targeted for that purpose.  I assure you if Holder was asked if a hate-based homosexual organization targeted christians, would they be prosecuted as a hate crime.  His answer would be yes.  But that has never happened and will never happen.

Who is going to win the 6th race today at Los Alamitos since you can predict the future.

Secondly, Holder answered it exactly the way he answered it.  My point is, the letter of the law is absurd and that was the point of the Senators asking the question.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I'm not sure what your point here is, Chico's. Is it your assertion that all crimes committed by a person of one race against a person of another race is, by definition, a "hate" crime?
Frankly, this and your assaulted minister scenario show that you have no idea what the hate crime statute says or its intent.

Nope, absolutely not suggesting that.  Some, maybe most are random acts of violence.  What I find interesting are comments like MLKIII's yesterday that being black is a license to be killed, because apparently being black and murdered is the reason for one's murder.  No racism existed in the GZ case, but people won't let that go. 

I just find those arguments ridiculous, but seldom go checked by the media or the sheep that follow them.  I find it interesting that racism charges almost always come out in white on black murder, but almost never come out when the reverse happens...and that includes hate crime punishment. Why do you think that is the case?  Is there a different standard?  If a white person had racist tweets and then with his buddy went and killed a black kid jogging, would it be considered a hate crime?  If it wasn't considered as such, would the media EXPLODE along with certain individuals because it WASN'T categorized as such?  Of course, but when someone on the opposite side raises this distinction it doesn't count?

So what's good for the goose....

[forgetful]

Nope, absolutely not suggesting that.  Some, maybe most are random acts of violence.  What I find interesting are comments like MLKIII's yesterday that being black is a license to be killed, because apparently being black and murdered is the reason for one's murder.  No racism existed in the GZ case, but people won't let that go. 

I just find those arguments ridiculous, but seldom go checked by the media or the sheep that follow them.  I find it interesting that racism charges almost always come out in white on black murder, but almost never come out when the reverse happens...and that includes hate crime punishment. Why do you think that is the case?  Is there a different standard?  If a white person had racist tweets and then with his buddy went and killed a black kid jogging, would it be considered a hate crime?  If it wasn't considered as such, would the media EXPLODE along with certain individuals because it WASN'T categorized as such?  Of course, but when someone on the opposite side raises this distinction it doesn't count?

So what's good for the goose....

I answered this above.

As for the MLK III comment.  He actually said this.  "far too frequently, the color of one’s skin remains a license to profile, to arrest and to even murder with no regard for the content of one’s character,”

He never implies being black and murdered is the reason for ones murder.  He implies that it is still sad in this day and age that a person is judged by the color of their skin not the content of their character.  That still today, people profile and arrest individuals due to their being black and that in some cases this extends to actually killing them, because they are black and profiled as a criminal.  A far cry from the outlandish statement you make and a valid point.

Crimes are committed based on poverty in the US.  People assign this to race, as you have done.  Leading to a misperception that african americans are inherently more violent.  It is well documented that his has led to people being shot and killed because the 'individual fears for their life', assigning violent demeanor due to skin color alone.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Christian preacher attacked at gay rights demonstration.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/utyiN7g0TkE" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/utyiN7g0TkE</a>

He practiced his first amendment right and was attacked for it.  You're right, it never happened and never would happen.     This happened less than two months ago.

http://mynorthwest.com/194/2308162/Intolerance-at-the-Pride-Parade-Where-are-the-hate-crime-charges

[forgetful]

Christian preacher attacked at gay rights demonstration.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/utyiN7g0TkE" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/utyiN7g0TkE</a>

He practiced his first amendment right and was attacked for it.  You're right, it never happened and never would happen.    This happened less than two months ago.

http://mynorthwest.com/194/2308162/Intolerance-at-the-Pride-Parade-Where-are-the-hate-crime-charges

Seriously?  For about 3 minutes they ask him to leave.  He stays.  Once the police arrive, one guy tries to steal the sign from him.  In the process of trying to get the sign, he is pinned to the ground.  Another guy sees that part an runs in and takes out the guy on top, should he have done that, no.

Far from a brawl.  And definitely not " a group of gays selectively targeting a christian"  As I referred to.  

Frankly, watching that video, no charges should be filed at all, nonetheless hate crimes.

[Pakuni]

Christian preacher attacked at gay rights demonstration.

Dude trolls event, gets pushed.
Hate crime!

In all seriousness, tell us how this is an example of him being attacked because of his race, sexual orientation, gender, religion, etc.'
It's not, of course. He was "attacked" because he chose to go provoke people, not because he's a Christian. I'm aware of nothing in Christianity says "go provoke people with whom you disagree." At least outside the Westboro Baptist version of Christianity.
I don't advocate violence - even against a--holes who provoke - and if he was assaulted, then the law should intervene. But a hate crime? Er .... no.

[ATL MU Warrior]

Christian preacher attacked at gay rights demonstration.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/utyiN7g0TkE" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/utyiN7g0TkE</a>

He practiced his first amendment right and was attacked for it.  You're right, it never happened and never would happen.    This happened less than two months ago.

http://mynorthwest.com/194/2308162/Intolerance-at-the-Pride-Parade-Where-are-the-hate-crime-charges

My god it is hard to take you seriously.  Anybody that suggests this is a hate crime shows a total lack of understanding of what a hate crime is.  

If you had your way virtually any violent crime could be construed as a hate crime.  That would do wonders for our law enforcement and criminal justice systems.  

[Hards Alumni]

Says one liberal supporting another liberal's point of view..l AM SHOCKED.  LOL

Maybe a moment of silence today for Delbert might be nice...just a simple thank you to him and his contributions to this country.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/60715/delbert-benton-and-christopher-lane-hate-crimes-show-a-massive-racial-divide-in-america

No.  Its logic.  I made the same point pages and pages ago.  This has nothing to do with liberal/conservative.

Also, a sincere, GO unnatural carnal knowledge YOURSELF, from me for implying that I somehow am not thankful for his contributions you pretentious piece of crap.

[ATL MU Warrior]

Says one liberal supporting another liberal's point of view..l AM SHOCKED.  LOL

Maybe a moment of silence today for Delbert might be nice...just a simple thank you to him and his contributions to this country.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/60715/delbert-benton-and-christopher-lane-hate-crimes-show-a-massive-racial-divide-in-america

So, this made me think.  If there are "liberals supporting liberals" in this thread, where are all the "conservatives" supporting your point of view?  Surely the "liberals" are vastly outnumbered here. 

One would think the silence is deafening, no?  And one would think that should tell you how far off base your views are on this matter, no? 

Unfortunately, the answer is all too obvious.