In Michigan, Improper Pronoun Use Could Land You in Jail

Ummm ... "prohibit hate" ... you can't be serious, right? You think the law should arrest people based on their feelings? This law actually proposed to arrest people based on their actions ... and I did read it ... it's literally the first sentence of the bill ...

Sec. 147b. (1) A person is guilty of a hate crime if that person maliciously , and intentionally does any of the following to an individual based in whole or in part on an actual or perceived characteristic of that individual listed under subsection (2), regardless of the existence of any other motivating factors:

(a) Uses force or violence on another individual. (b) Causes bodily injury to another individual. (c) Intimidates another individual. (d) Damages, destroys, or defaces any real, personal, digital, ... etc. etc...

... by golly, that sounds like an explaination of what "hate crime" means ... some might call that the definition ... I don't know....

 

You listed some groups ... then gave an example of a non hate crime and asked 'why it's under the unbrella of this bill'? Well ... because your example wasn't a hate crime ... it's that simple. You might as well ask why identity theft isn't a hate crime if you steal a black person's ID ... it's just not, but there are other laws that cover that.

You tell me, why should 'red heads' and 'fat sisters in laws', or whatever other groups you mentioned, be specifically included in a hate crime bill? Why don't go that route ...

 

have you not read anything in our dialogue? No group of people are special. Having some dumbass people in Michigan use our laws to earn a woke merit badge from the People Scouts does not persuade me that their chosen few should get the cookies while everyone else gets the stink eye. EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER THE LAW. If you want to outlaw hate (which I think is stupid in its own right) then outlaw hate….against EVERYONE. Hate is hate

 

Awesome, you copied and pasted the elements of the crime. But I see that you failed to actually answer my question: what’s the definition (not explanation) of a hate crime. If you think that the elements of this “crime” are also the definition…well ok then. LOL.

Hey jump out of the basement real quick and go ask your parents this question:

if a mommy or daddy spanks their little five year old, and bruised his little tushy, because little Johnie kicked the cat in the head, how many years in prison are they going to get under this statute? Report back to us what your parents say.

now, assignment number two. If by any chance you belong to a gay S&M club, and if not, maybe Google one… Ask them how many years they expect to spend in prison for engaging in sadomasochism. Because that kink falls smack dab in the middle of that train wreck bill.

I know, I’m crazy….but I have actually written (and litigated) legislation and I’m certain you have not.

 

Seems like you realize you are getting mentally abused in this thread and now just want to go with personal insults… that’s a tactic that only losers resort to.

Anyway, I’m pretty sure that listing the elements of a hate crime “define” what a hate crime is…. The law is written like…. “This is what you have to to be convicted of hate crime”…. But you are like, “well, uh, but, but,um, I don’t think that’s really a definition”. Looks to me like the law defines it pretty well…

 

I knew what was implied that was sarcasm on my part. But thank anyway, River... I know you got my back.

 

Don’t come on here and act like are winning arguments with anyone. You are not. You have failed to put together a rational, coherent and/or cohesive thought. Instead you talk in circles. You are so focused on your futile attempt to be “right” on your interpretation of the “hate crime law” (including the definition of the term) you never noticed that the goofs in Michigan crafted/amended a law they call “hate crime” to criminalize conduct that does not require hate or any emotion. You could have a nasty intervention with a loved one purely out of love and be convicted under this train wreck. I could come up with 50 scenarios in an afternoon which could warrant an indictment while simultaneously getting you and the Michigan democrats crying “but that wasn’t the intent.” My guess is this law will get struck down as being void for vagueness and a violation of due process and the equal protection clause. It’s crap. Have a magical day.

 

My only interest in this thread was calling you Out for all the lies you told, and proving them wrong … I don’t know why it’s a right wing tactic to lie and hope nobody notices, but you’ve gone from claiming people could be sent to prison for the wrong pronoun, or saying a Satan Worshipper is a Buddhist … to claiming people are excluded from the law when literally every person who exists and has ever existed would be covered under the law … to claiming the law doesn’t even define what a hate crime is … and, I just now noticed you claimed the “reasonable person” standard wasn’t used when it’s written right into the text, so let’s add that to your list of lies…. it’s just a non stop bullshit firehose. Now are pivoting to claiming a family intervention could be illegal, and even the totally laughable claim that it bans kinky sex between two consenting adults …. Once again, I’ll point you to the actual text of the law, that says , and I paraphrase, continued and repeated harassment and intimidation that causes a person to actually feel threatened, frightened, or terrorized…

And, now, all it boils down to, after we get past the bullshit you tried to peddle off as facts, is that you just don’t like anti hate crime laws. Well, no one gives a shit about your opinion. But next time, just say that, instead of lying your ass off about facts that can be easily verified by simply reading the bill.

 

I think you're looking at this all wrong. I think you're looking at it from a victim perspective. Look at it from the perpetrator perspective. I think earlier in the thread someone brought up the analogy of shoplifting vs. armed robbery, so let's use that. In that case, either way, the victim is someone who got something stolen from them. The perpetrator obviously is going to have heavier charges against them for the armed robbery, and lesser charges if it were shoplifting. The victim isn't really "protected" by the greater charges, he was just robbed either way.

This makes me think of an interesting scenario... Say someone assaulted me, and was using Jewish slurs, etc. and it was clearly a hate crime. BUT... I'm not Jewish. Would the hate crime still apply?

 

How does it feel to have failed at everything. You have a very naive understanding how statutes are utilized and/or interpreted. When you say everyone is covered under the bill because everyone has “age”, every lawyer and judge here is laughing at you, and most college grads are thinking “that doesn’t make sense” because most learned basic logic in college. Elementary rules of statutory construction do not permit your interpretation, in part, because that would render every listed class as superfluous. That’s a big word meaning “no can do” for Judges and Lawyers.

You attempt to challenge my 2 hypotheticals on discipline and kink….not with any analysis of those facts to the bill, but instead with the proverbial ‘“nuh-uh’” and symbolic foot stomping and brush off. Perhaps you wrongfully think my examples don’t include multiple whacks with the hand/belt for the kid, or numerous smacks with the leather whip for the gay man…but those facts weren’t given and were not inferred. Instead you made them up.

What makes you especially sad is I thought you were right on the verge of understanding how this law actually applies. This is what frustrates me, because instead of the lightbulb going off in your head, the heels went into the ground. On one hand, you recognized that the teacher that was attacked because the perpetrator hated teachers was not a hate crime, but that same crime perpetrated on a teacher who was attacked because the teacher was gay, is a hate crime. That was part I. You should have stopped there, because that is where the Analysis of the application of this type of laws should end. Then you can move on to part II and discuss the whether or not this type of statute is good or bad. Your problem, in my opinion, is your intermingled the two separate discussions here primarily because you didn’t grasp the distinction and importance of both.

At least one of our fellow Gators above properly and correctly noted that this particular bill focuses more on the perpetrator than the victim. This is what my criminal law professor used to call a “because of” additur to a criminal statute, more commonly called an enhancement. Because the victim was X, you get in a lot more trouble. These laws are typically limited to provide a deterrence to commit crimes on those members of society that aren’t able to protect themselves, such as young children/old people and also those members of society that perform special services at risk of their own life, such as police officers. Historically, these types of laws were limited to these two categories, and were easily enforced because either you’re a police officer, or you’re not. Either you’re a child or you’re not. It does not rely upon any subjective feeling. Some states have even adopted statutes protecting pregnant women, by providing personhood to the fetus. Therefore, if you kill a pregnant woman, you’re going to get charged with double homicide. Again, either you’re pregnant or you’re not.

then, maybe 50 years or so ago, legislators started adding enhancements to other types of crimes. The most common was drugs. Some drugs would get you a slap on the wrist, while other drugs would get you federal enforcement, and 50 years in prison without the possibility of parole. If you pay attention to the news at all over the last 15 years, there is a large movement percolating because of the potential (I believe real) racist application of this enhancement. BTW I believe this was one of Joe Biden’s signature legislations why he was in the Senate

Whether enacted with good or bad intentions, the “enhancement “ directed towards drugs disproportionately used by people of color had a foreseeable consequence. Good people didn’t play the “what if” game we are playing here. If you’re trying to eliminate drugs, then treat all drugs, the same. That would have the desired effect. You don’t single out certain drugs, because of the unforeseen/foreseeable consequences. The same holds true with ”hate”. If the purpose of this bill is to prevent hate crimes, then why is it limited to only certain groups. The emphasis should be on prohibiting hate. Hate is Hate.

So, in summation , I believe people like you are dangerous. You are so rooted in your dogmatic political philosophy that you have limited forethought. Some Trump supporter suffer from the infliction. You both would rather be “right” than be “good.” Meanwhile, months or years down the road you both whimper “how did this happen?”

 

The bottom line is that a hate crime law includes the protected classes because those are the types of people who are often attacked by people who hate them, and the reason they are attacked is normally based on race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and/or the other attributes listed in the bill. That's what an anit-hate crime law is. Those groups, while they are broad and include literally every human, can obviously be broken down into subsets of people who could actually use an extra deterrent for crimes to be committed against them because they are actually more often victims of hate-group motivated crimes. But, since as I said, the groups are broads and include every human, while it's true that jewish person attacked for being jewish would fall under this hate crime law (which is a thing that happens very often), the law would also cover a jewish person attacking a christian for being christian (which Christians being attacked for being Christians is a thing that happens very rarely). But regardless, you can't say the law is unfair just because people your race/religion/sexual preference is normally the attackers, instead of the victims.

As far I know, there are no groups that promote hate for teachers, and I've never heard of a teacher being attacked by someone claiming to be a member of teacher hater group, yelling "kill all teachers". But if that were a thing that actually happened in the real world often, I'd hope that the legislatures would make laws to try to reduce those instances. But you insisting the law is flawed because it doesn't specifically "protect" people who are not routinely attacked, from hate groups that don't actually exist, based on an ideological call for violence that never happens ... well, that's one of the dumbest arguments I can imagine.

 

To answer my own hypothetical reading the bill, yes, it would apply based on the word "perceived".

 

Pardon muah...think I'll excuse myself before...

 

Wardamngator- no matter how many times you repeat you misunderstanding of our judicial system, it is not going to magically make you correct. You are a zealot who talks in circles and just keeps repeating the same garbage. I am done engaging with you. Sayonara.

 

Ok ... that means a lot coming from a guy who started this conversation by insisting that the law actually says that using the wrong pronoun will land you in prison, and then got somehow managed to send the conversation in even dumber and dumber directions from there -- all the way down to claiming that hate crime laws ban kinky consensual sex. I mean, seriously, that was all you ... repeating your misunderstandings didn't make you magically correct... you just don't understand our judicial system. Adios.