Thanks, homophobes!

March 25, 2005 4:38 AM

Domestic abuser goes free - thanks, gay marriage ban! An Ohio man has been acquitted of domestic abuse charges on the grounds that under the state's new ban on civil unions - gay and straight- the defendant could not be guilty of domestic abuse because he was not married to his live-in girlfriend.
posted by XQUZYPHYR (64 comments total)

His public defender, David Magee, had asked the judge to throw out the charge because of the new wording in Ohio's constitution that prohibits any state or local government from enforcing a law that would "create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals."

Prior to the amendment's approval, courts applied the domestic violence law by defining a family as including an unmarried couple living together as would a husband and wife, the judge said. The new amendment banning same-sex marriage no longer allows that.

posted by XQUZYPHYR at 4:39 AM on March 25, 2005

Ohio's is regarded as the broadest amendment of those passed by 11 states on November 2 because it bans civil unions and legal status for all unmarried couples, gay and straight. [emphasis mine]

This law is much more ridiculous than your average gay marriage ban. Maybe gaping loopholes like this will set it up for a knock down.
posted by sciurus at 4:50 AM on March 25, 2005

There wasn't any need for the link with your summary. The article is pretty hollow. *yawn*
posted by peacay at 4:54 AM on March 25, 2005

I agree. This is the exact type of case that will hopefully make people realize that quick legislative backsteps because of "mob social mentality" will create all sorts of legal problems and loopholes in the future.
posted by lockle at 4:55 AM on March 25, 2005

Damn those gays! Destroying time-honored traditions like marriage and wife-beating!

I mean, how can you be a real he-men if you can't assert your masculinity by beating up faggits and practicing for that on your girlfriend!
posted by orthogonality at 4:56 AM on March 25, 2005

Oh, and PlanetOut has a slightly more meatier version of this story on their website. Has some interesting quotes from several parties involved.
posted by lockle at 4:57 AM on March 25, 2005

And remember kids, the same Bible that says to kill the gays (Leviticus 20:13) and to eschew interracial marriage (Deuteronomy 7:3) says wives should be "obedient to their own husbands" (Titus 2:5). And to beat your children (Proverbs 13:24).

America is a Christian Country! So it's just another example of God's love for us that He made it so that a law that upholds Leviticus also upholds Titus! I just can't wait until our country is moral enough to uphold Deuteronomy and Proverbs too! Maybe once we get more monuments of the Ten Commandments inside courthouses, the activist judges will be afraid enough of our Holy wrath to allow us to beat children and wives and stop miscegenation and kill gays while at the same time we save Terry Schiavo. Because life is sacred!
posted by orthogonality at 5:11 AM on March 25, 2005

Why is assault deserving of less punishment than domestic abuse anyway? They seem like the same crime to me, and should deserve the same punishment.
posted by willnot at 5:18 AM on March 25, 2005

orthogonality, you're kinda scary.
posted by sour cream at 5:34 AM on March 25, 2005

Domestic abuser "goes free?" Domestic abuser "is acquitted?"

Not quite. According to the articles cited by both XQUZYPHYR and lockle, the charge of domestic abuse (a felony, in Ohio) has been reduced to assault (a misdemeanor).
posted by MadeByMark at 5:53 AM on March 25, 2005

sour cream writes "orthogonality, you're kinda scary."

Well, I suppose so.

But for every orthogonality parodying it, there are ten or a hundred Little Green Goofballs and Fear Republicans who really, really mean it.

I just prick your conscience on a web page; those pricks run your country and want to run your life.
posted by orthogonality at 6:00 AM on March 25, 2005

I just can't wait until our country is moral enough to uphold Deuteronomy and Proverbs too!

Gah! Metafilter has been a whirlwind of righteous rage, a firestorm burning the fundies to their boots, and how.

It is rather pleasing. I would like to contribute (though I am oft harangued for my evangelical leanings it breaks my heart to imagine you all burning in the hot, hot fires of eternal, sulfurous damnation, getting poked by demons with little sticks with barbs on them and so I quote St. Thomas Aquinas:

"A man should remind himself that an object of faith is not scientifically demonstrable, lest presuming to demonstrate what is of faith, he should produce inconclusive reasons and offer occasion for unbelievers to scoff at a faith based on such ground."
posted by Baby_Balrog at 6:05 AM on March 25, 2005

orthogonality-

Why doesn't it surprise me that you're a chapter and verse man? I keep waiting for the fundies to keep kosher, maybe then I'll start thinking about the other stuff. But keeping kosher wreaks havoc on the all-American cheese burger, so I'm not too worried. It's funny how the Hebrew Bible doesn't count, except when it does; and except when it isn't funny.

As I once saw on a church billboard in Benton, TN: "Except Jesus!"
posted by OmieWise at 6:19 AM on March 25, 2005

I agree. This is the exact type of case that will hopefully make people realize that quick legislative backsteps because of "mob social mentality" will create all sorts of legal problems and loopholes in the future.

Are you kidding? The kind of people who voted for these bans love "mob social mentality." It's the only mentality they know. This case is good in their eyes: if that woman wants the full protections of the law she needs to live according to their morality, which states that there's only one proper way for a man and a woman to live together.

It is a sick and decadent worldview, but there it is.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 6:21 AM on March 25, 2005

OmieWise writes "Why doesn't it surprise me that you're a chapter and verse man? "

Sorry, I forgot to add the "STFU lib'ruls" that indicates my post is meant sarcastically.

And I'm afraid PinkStainless Tail is not being sarcastic when he writes "This case is good in their eyes: if that woman wants the full protections of the law she needs to live according to their morality, which states that there's only one proper way for a man and a woman to live together."

I'm afraid he's very very correct.
posted by orthogonality at 6:24 AM on March 25, 2005

What willnot says. Why should some random guy on the street who beats me up get off easier than the guy who beats his girlfriend? And, is this prosecutor an idiot? Why is he only being charged with simple misdemeanor assault?
posted by IshmaelGraves at 6:24 AM on March 25, 2005

Slightly repeaty, but some more meat from the Plain Dealer. Another judge has said the same thing. It appears that they'd rather change the domestic violence law than the marriage ban. [reg. req.] via
posted by sciurus at 6:25 AM on March 25, 2005

I knew something insane like this was going to happen. I just didn't think it would be so soon.

And orthogonality wins. Again.

And I'm still not sure if I love or loathe the rascal, or both, or what. He (or she) does even more to live up their username than I do, and that can't be normal. A little scary indeed.

Though, I wouldn't be surprised at all if we ever traded barbs on usenet back in the day. Or even fidonet.
posted by loquacious at 6:26 AM on March 25, 2005

Why is assault deserving of less punishment than domestic abuse anyway? They seem like the same crime to me, and should deserve the same punishment.

I initially asked myself the same question. In domestic abuse, the relationship between the individuals is different. The abused may have placed a large amount of trust in and/or become dependent on the abuser through a spoken or unspoken agreement. There is a violation of trust that you don't have when two strangers are involved.
posted by boymilo at 6:26 AM on March 25, 2005

That's the "culture of wife" for ya..
posted by srboisvert at 6:27 AM on March 25, 2005

The reason domestic abuse is a separate charge, (guessing here) would be that it implies something that's been going on for a long period of time. If there was enough evidence to charge the abuser for each separate incident of abuse then it wouldn't be needed, but that's not how these things work.

And pinkstainlesstail is right, she shouldn't have been living in sin in the first place.
posted by Space Coyote at 6:31 AM on March 25, 2005

boymilo writes "I initially asked myself the same question. In domestic abuse, the relationship between the individuals is different. The abused may have placed a large amount of trust in and/or become dependent on the abuser through a spoken or unspoken agreement. There is a violation of trust that you don't have when two strangers are involved."

I think that's exactly correct, and there are other complications like monetary dependence etc that make domestic abuse much more of a problem. It is assumed that with regular assualt, the victim is much more easliy able to get away from the abuser. There are more likely to be other witnesses, the list goes on.

On preview-Space Coyote-Is that right? I hadn't thought of that aspect of it, and I'm not sure if it's relevant or not.

orthogonality-I knew you were kidding, but I can take it to MeTa if you want!

You do know I'm kidding, right? But not about the kidding, just about the MeTa.
posted by OmieWise at 6:33 AM on March 25, 2005

> In domestic abuse, the relationship between the individuals is different. The
> abused may have placed a large amount of trust in and/or become dependent
> on the abuser through a spoken or unspoken agreement. There is a violation
> of trust that you don't have when two strangers are involved.

That is far too subtle a difference to jack a misdemeanor up to a felony. This ruling is merely evidence that "domestic abuse" is ceasing to push people's hot buttons. Calm rationality prevails, and it's about time. Ordinary laws against assault (and battery, if it comes to that) are entirely adequate to cover the situation.
posted by jfuller at 6:38 AM on March 25, 2005

jfuller writes Ordinary laws against assault (and battery, if it comes to that) are entirely adequate to cover the situation."

I don't agree. Domestic abuse is much more complex than simple assault. The statistics on people killed by domestic abusers are not pretty. The relationship may be subtle, but it is also difficult to extricate the victim from, in many cases.

Are ordinary traffic laws adequate for dealing with people who DWI? No, because the situation is substantially different. As is domestic abuse from ordinary assault.
posted by OmieWise at 6:44 AM on March 25, 2005

Ordinary laws against assault (and battery, if it comes to that) are entirely adequate to cover the situation.

Logically, this makes sense. But I've never been in the situation myself, so its easy for me to step back and start making judgements. I don't have personal experience with these types of crimes, so it's impossible for me to determine if domestic abuse and assault are equal. It's similar to the concept of "hate crimes."
posted by boymilo at 6:49 AM on March 25, 2005

OmieWise , it was just a guess.. but intuitively I would think that many domestic abuse cases don't get caught and go straight to court after the very first incident.

And jfuller are you really saying that the laws that would cover a bar fight are adequate for domestic abuse?
posted by Space Coyote at 6:50 AM on March 25, 2005

a firestorm burning the fundies to their boots

Finally, a constructive solution.
posted by gimonca at 7:04 AM on March 25, 2005

For those of you arguing over whether domestic violence should be a felony, I don't believe it actually is in this case; it's simply a matter of repeat offenses:

Because Burk had a prior domestic violence conviction, the latest charge was a felony
posted by rxrfrx at 7:05 AM on March 25, 2005

Domestic Abuse is a much stickier problem then Assult. I mean, how often are people randomly assulted anyway? But domestic abuse is usualy something that goes on for a long time. It's like a pathological condition. The Victim, for whatever reason, isn't capable of removing themselves from the situation.

Domestic Abuse is really a sad problem, and it seems like a structural problem with humanity. But domestic abuse can lead to death, In fact, domestic abuse (of pregnant women) is the number one cause of birth defects in this country. Think about that... It's more like a public health problem then anything.
posted by delmoi at 7:13 AM on March 25, 2005

gimonca writes "a firestorm burning the fundies to their boots

"Finally, a constructive solution."

Yeah, let's give them their Reichstag Fire.

Remember, the fundies truly believe that they're surrounded and marginalized already: Hollywood mocks their values, the homos recruit their sons, the scientists call their faith a superstition and their grandfathers monkeys, the academics seduce their daughters, the doctors abort their adolescent grandchildren and euthenize their aged grandparents, and the atheists "crusade" to stop them from putting up creches and their children from praying before exams in public school, all while the liberals drink Chardonnay and eat Brie and make fun of their accents and their guns and their close-to-God poverty and their values.

They really feel that they're endangered, and all the more Holy for that, having been raised on Isiah and Jeremiah, tales of a Chosen People gone decadent and punished by God until they purified their nation, and on Job, which explains their every setback is a test from, and therefore further evidence of, God.
posted by orthogonality at 7:20 AM on March 25, 2005

Oh, and a happy Good Friday to everyone. I'm celebrating it as I usually do, by singing along to "Jesus Christ Superstar":

Fools! You have no perception
The stakes we are gambling
Are frighteningly high
We must crush him completely
So like John before him
This Jesus must die
For the sake of the nation
This Jesus must die
Must die, must die
This Jesus must die

posted by orthogonality at 7:23 AM on March 25, 2005

What Space Coyote said.

If you can prove domestic assault, odds are quite good that there was a lot of prior but unprovable assault.
posted by selfmedicating at 7:23 AM on March 25, 2005

orthogonality, I prefer this one:

If Jesus saves -- well, He'd better save Himself
from the gory glory seekers who use His name in death....
posted by jonmc at 7:29 AM on March 25, 2005

What many others have been saying re: domestic abuse as being a series of assaults against someone who often cannot easily get away (and the fact that prior offenses were actually what made this one a felony.)

This was kind of inevitable. There's going to be even more fallout to come. Marriage provides well over a thousand different rights, privileges, and responsibilities. With that many floating around, a fair number of them currently overlap with extant ones in non-marriage relationships, usually for reasons of common sense. We can say goodbye to a lot more common sense in the coming days.
posted by kyrademon at 7:32 AM on March 25, 2005

Orthogonality: You should have been at our block party last night for Maundy Thursday. We drank lambrusco and watched the Passion of the Jebus. You would have added so much to our running commentary.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 7:33 AM on March 25, 2005

> I don't have personal experience with these types of crimes, so it's impossible
> for me to determine if domestic abuse and assault are equal.

The people of Ohio (and the legislators) were, the vast majority of them, in exactly the same situation when the domestic-abuse law was passed--but that didn't stop them. They were moved in the direction of passing the law by the prevailing wind of fashion. Now the wind of fashion is blowing the other way.

> It's similar to the concept of "hate crimes."

You're exactly right, and you may well imagine that I think "hate crimes" are no different from ordinary crimes and to treat them differently is an invitation to thought control by the government and, ultimately, criminalization of anyone who is imagined, by anyone, not to be a person of good will. Because of the notion of "hate crime" it's now illegal in Australia to quote parts of the Koran. It's a hate crime against Muslims. Another example that may persuade some of the sort of folk I encounter here of the danger of the "hate crime" notion: "Hate crime" laws in England now make it possible to report a person to the police for criticising the American president, and the police must investigate the reported person instead of dismissing the complaint out of hand. You may not have known that Americans were a protected "race," but we are. From the London Times, issue of Feb. 23, 2002:

A vicar is being investigated by the police after writing an article in his parish magazine that denounced the U.S. President as more of a threat to peace than terrorism. The Rev. Nigel Cooper, 48, a Church of England clergyman at St. Mary's and All Saints in Rivenhall, Essex, was reported by a parishioner, apparently for inciting racial hatred against Americans. The magazine has a circulation of about 500 copies.

The vicar's complaints against the U.S. involved its response to September 11. He criticised conditions in which Taleban prisoners were kept in Guantanamo Bay, capitalism generally, and Christian fundamentalism in the U.S. He wrote of Americans: "They have not been fighting for civilisation but for empire, power and the American way of life: luxury in a world of poverty."

A police spokesman said: "I can confirm that a complaint has been received concerning the contents of an article in the February issue of the Rivenhall parish magazine. This complaint is currently being investigated."

I confidently predict that, due to the philosophy of "hate crimes," the day will come when someone becomes the subject of a police investigation for something inflammatory they posted on Metafilter about fundies. Great going, guys. ("It can't happen heeeeere..." -- Frank Zappa.)
posted by jfuller at 7:42 AM on March 25, 2005

The Victim, for whatever reason, isn't capable of removing themselves from the situation.

This seems to me more key to the distinction than the violation of trust. If someone assaults you on the street or in a bar, you have recourse to your own living quarters to get away from them. If your assaulter is living with you, that is a quantum difference, and it really doesn't matter what your relationship with the assaulter is.

The logical conclusion from this is that 'domestic abuse' should even apply to non-sexual roommates. I'd have no problem with that, as it at least gets closer to the actual problem in the situation than ridiculous distinctions between "married" and "shacking up" couples.
posted by soyjoy at 7:42 AM on March 25, 2005

jfuller writes "'hate crimes' are no different from ordinary crimes and to treat them differently is an invitation to thought control by the government and, ultimately, criminalization of anyone who is imagined, by anyone, not to be a person of good will."

jfuller's spot on. Criminalize the acts, not the motivations or the thoughts.

Pro-PC, pro-hate crime "liberals" ought to by now be understanding their folly, now that Bush is in power and the people screaming about being offended are that new "protected minority", fundies. If you don't get it yet, see the thread on the proposed Florida legislation to allow offend students to sue teachers who don't defer to students' prattle about Creationism"Intelligent Design".

I put scare quotes around "liberal" for a reason: it's ill-liberal to criminalize thoughts, even for the best of reasons. A man ought to be free inside his own head, no matter now vile he makes it. There's no freedom more precious or more fundamental than freedom of conscience.

(And I hope the anti-gun rights "liberals" are also reconsidering the NRA's argument that a right to own guns is, ultimately, the guarantor of our liberties.)
posted by orthogonality at 7:56 AM on March 25, 2005

(And I hope the anti-gun rights "liberals" are also reconsidering the NRA's argument that a right to own guns is, ultimately, the guarantor of our liberties.)

Which is funny since so many of my gun-loving, NRA card carrying friends and relatives are so eager to hand over they civil liberties to the federal government, so long as they can keep their guns. Can't see the forest for the trees?
posted by kableh at 8:21 AM on March 25, 2005

I'm sorry to have to bring this up again, but this entire thread only serves as further evidence that Ohio must be destroyed. With extreme prejudice. For our part, Michigan is willing to help the healing process begin, but only after they ADMIT THAT THEY WERE WRONG.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 8:26 AM on March 25, 2005

Oh, and a happy Good Friday to everyone. I'm celebrating it as I usually do, by singing along to "Jesus Christ Superstar"

My favorite musical!

Every time I look at you I don't understand
why you let the things you did get so out of hand
You'd have managed better
If you'd had it planned
Now why'd you choose such a backward time
And such a strange land?
posted by ludwig_van at 8:34 AM on March 25, 2005

"hate crimes" are no different from ordinary crimes and to treat them differently is an invitation to thought control by the government and, ultimately, criminalization of anyone who is imagined, by anyone, not to be a person of good will.

So...do we get rid of the distinction between first-degree and second-degree murder? After all, premeditation is a thought. By making a premeditated murder worse than one committed on a sudden impulse, we are effectively criminalizing the thought of premeditation. Or does this commitment to free thought only apply to domestic abusers — sorry, "domestic abusers" — and perpetrators of other "hot button" crimes?
posted by transona5 at 9:09 AM on March 25, 2005

Why are people ignoring the fact, which has been repeatedly pointed out, that it's a felony because it was a second offense, not because it's a thought crime?

Oh. Right. Because that would get in the way of your rhetoric. Carry on.
posted by kyrademon at 9:26 AM on March 25, 2005

> Why are people ignoring the fact, which has been repeatedly pointed
> out, that it's a felony because it was a second offense, not because it's a thought crime?

The thought-crime/hate-crime business represents a bit of topic drift (or a derail, if you prefer.) It has nothing to do with the domestic abuse incident linked in the original post, which nobody has called a thought crime. You can keep the threads separate in your mind if you concentrate.
posted by jfuller at 9:40 AM on March 25, 2005

It'll be interesting to see how many children in the state of Ohio have become illegitimized because Ohioans wanted to keep teh ghey from marrying.
posted by clevershark at 10:22 AM on March 25, 2005

Because of the notion of "hate crime" it's now illegal in Australia to quote parts of the Koran.

That's quite the stretch to say that because ONE judge, in one instance, decided to hand out a bad, chip-on-the-shoulder judgement, it's not illegal to quote parts of the Q'ran.

That would be a bit like saying that because O.J. got off it's obvious that a man may kill his wife (and whoever appears at the time to be her lover) in America.
posted by clevershark at 10:28 AM on March 25, 2005

"it's not illegal"

s/not/now... I type too damn fast for my own good.
posted by clevershark at 10:29 AM on March 25, 2005

I thought people were beyond the whole "legitimate" thing in recent decades. Does it make a difference in any meaningful way anymore? I am genuinely curious.

I saw my mother's birth certificate (from 1941) and it had a checkbox for legitimacy, but that was back in the day...
posted by beth at 10:51 AM on March 25, 2005

Domestic abuse is much more complex than simple assault.

Indeed -- and also, at the end of the day, when someone is done committing simple assault against you, they're not sleeping in your bedroom and they don't possess a key to your front door. And your car isn't in their name. And you don't have kids together. And so on.
posted by davejay at 10:57 AM on March 25, 2005

Regarding derail #1: hate speech laws are not the same as hate crime laws, generally. The former makes crimes out of speech and expression, the latter adds additional penalties for nefarious motives regarding certain acts that are already uncontroversially considered crimes (vandalism, assault, murder).

For example, if someone gets really mad at Alan Dershowitz for some reason (pick one) and paints the words, "I hope you die," in bright red on his brand-new Lexus, that's one thing. But if that someone paints, "I hope you die, Jew" on Dershowitz's car, well, there's a whole other dimension to the crime now. It's not just a crime against Dershowitz, but a crime against all the other Jewish people in the neighborhood as well, and to a lesser extent, everywhere. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand the differing social ramifications of these two hypotheticals. That is why more harshly punishing criminal offenders motivated by religious or ethnic bias, or where there is intent to threaten or intimidate a religious or ethnic group, is fine by me.

Hate speech laws, on the other hand, are quite pernicious, precisely because they can be used in overly broad ways that could have a chilling effect on protected speech, such as the criticism of certain missionary religions. There is a difference between acts and expression, and any just law would honor that distinction.

Back on topic: I really, really wish that people would not vote on referendums of any kind unless they've been able to read the actual text and reflect on its wider implications. Changing legal codes in sweeping ways without stopping to consider all the potential consequences is like tearing random parts out of a car engine and expecting it to start. In this case, there wasn't even a real problem to fix, IMHO, but the good people of Ohio decided to "fix" it anyway. So now there is a problem, and there will probably be more, and my guess is there will be ad hoc solutions hurried through the state legislature for each one as it comes up. Ideally, the referendum should just be repealed; it would be nice if Ohio's electorate could muster up the integrity to admit their mistakes and clean up the mess they've made, but I doubt it will happen anytime soon.

I'd love to see some dedicated activists prove me wrong.

davejay, on preview: ditto.
posted by skoosh at 11:45 AM on March 25, 2005

Wow, jfuller, does that dripping condescension generally win you many converts to your side of arguments?
posted by kyrademon at 12:51 PM on March 25, 2005

"It's not just a crime against Dershowitz, but a crime against all the other Jewish people in the neighborhood as well, and to a lesser extent, everywhere."

Uh, no, it's not. The crime committed in your example is someone painting on Dershowitz's car. That's all. Nobody else got their car painted on, in your hypothetical - "all the other Jewish people in the neighborhood" didn't have their cars defaced. The guy committing the crime is clearly a bigot, here, but bigotry in and of itself is not criminal. Shameful, yeah, and disgusting, but not criminal. And once you start punishing people who commit crimes more because they're bigots, you're policing thoughts, punishing people for an undesirable thought. And this crosses a line any decent society can't cross. Crimes committed based on racial or religious or whatever hatred are crimes, yeah, but they're not somehow worse because of the motivation.

Another hypothetical: Let's suppose I kill my neighbor. What, exactly, is the difference in the crime if I killed him for playing loud music in them iddle of the night, as opposed to if I killed him for being gay? In either case, I killed a guy. That's all. That's bad, but that's all.
posted by kafziel at 1:11 PM on March 25, 2005

(a felony, in Ohio) has been reduced to assault (a misdemeanor).
Put the blame on money, good lawyer, as a felony is not a wanted conviction. As jail mandatory jail time follows.
posted by thomcatspike at 1:18 PM on March 25, 2005

What, exactly, is the difference in the crime if I killed him for playing loud music in them iddle of the night, as opposed to if I killed him for being gay?

Killing someone because they're gay, or spraying DIE FAGGOT on their car, is a threat to other gay people in the area, a terroristic attempt to drive out the gay people or control their behavior. Spraying "SOUP IS GOOD FOOD" or "ROCKETS" or even DIE KAFZIEL DIE!!! on someone's car doesn't threaten anyone else.

In a hate crime, there are two crimes. One is the facial offense, the other is the threat. This is why burning a cross in someone's yard is different from burning leaves in someone's yard.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 1:52 PM on March 25, 2005

As someone who survived an abusive relationship, I want to point out that domestic abuse includes a psychological abuse that can in many cases be nearly as bad as the physical abuse, and the presence of psychological abuse is, to me, what makes domestic abuse worse than simple assault.

As far as hate crimes go...obviously, laws concerning "hate speech" are wrong because, like skoosh said, they are broad and can be abused. And it may seem as if many times the "hate crime" label is inappropriate, but would a simple "vandalism" charge for the burning cross set up in the new black neighbors' yard be appropriate? A "hate crime," to me, creates an persistant fear within the victims that another crime may not.

Oh, and I've been reading MeFi for over a year, but just joined. Hiii!
posted by scarymonsterrrr at 2:02 PM on March 25, 2005

I just realized ROU_Xenophobe is named after an Iain Banks sentient warship! Coool!
posted by orthogonality at 2:10 PM on March 25, 2005

Killing someone because they're gay, or spraying DIE FAGGOT on their car, is a threat to other gay people in the area, a terroristic attempt to drive out the gay people or control their behavior.

And killing someone because they play music loud is a threat to everyone else who plays their music loud in the area, a terroristic attempt to drive out the noisy people or control their behavior. Any targetted crime like that (ie, not "Rob the nearest store") carries an inherent "Don't do what this guy did" threat with it. What makes anti-gay crime special? Anti-black crime? Anti-Muslim crime?
posted by kafziel at 2:20 PM on March 25, 2005

You are being quite thick.
posted by five fresh fish at 3:36 PM on March 25, 2005

Kafziel because you are attacking people for what they ARE rather then what they DO.

Not that attacking people for what they do is OK, but you know what I mean. And if you don't then see fff's post above.
posted by fshgrl at 5:16 PM on March 25, 2005

fshgrl writes "Kafziel because you are attacking people for what they ARE rather then what they DO."

Were I mugger, Ihope I'd be savvy enough to target people who ARE rich rather than those who ARE poor. ;)
posted by orthogonality at 5:38 PM on March 25, 2005

What if I target people because they have gay-sex (WHAT THEY DO) not because they are gay (WHAT THEY ARE).?
posted by drscroogemcduck at 7:51 PM on March 25, 2005

Unless they were having the "gay-sex" with you personally, I guess I'd have to wonder why you felt the need to get involved in the first place.
posted by purplemonkie at 8:14 PM on March 25, 2005

What if I target people because they have gay-sex (WHAT THEY DO) not because they are gay (WHAT THEY ARE).?

Then I'd say you were in denial about your true motivations.
posted by fshgrl at 10:18 AM on March 26, 2005

Orthogonality : I just realized ROU_Xenophobe is named after an Iain Banks sentient warship! Coool!

The ROU bit being "Rapid Offensive Unit." You'll have to decide if thast's apt or not.
posted by Mr Bismarck at 5:29 AM on March 30, 2005