" MAN COULD BE CHARGED WITH HATE CRIME"

[Ehwmatt]

NICE!! I had a draft one last night at PF Chang's. Good stuff.

Ahh PF Chang's - not sure about that place. So pricey for the quality (some of the mall places we have do some of their dishes better honestly), small food portions (only place I eat Chinese that doesn't fill me to the point of uncomfortableness), and some not that great dishes. Plus I've never seen ONE Chinese or even an Asian working at either one I've been to - how authentic can it be? It's a nice place though, fun to go to still. My ex loved that place. Kinda glad I don't have to go there anymore, we have a much better local Chinese place.

[Behshad]

NICE!! I had a draft one last night at PF Chang's. Good stuff.

Ahh PF Chang's - not sure about that place. So pricey for the quality (some of the mall places we have do some of their dishes better honestly), small food portions (only place I eat Chinese that doesn't fill me to the point of uncomfortableness), and some not that great dishes. Plus I've never seen ONE Chinese or even an Asian working at either one I've been to - how authentic can it be? It's a nice place though, fun to go to still. My ex loved that place. Kinda glad I don't have to go there anymore, we have a much better local Chinese place.

Im with you...While I enjoyed their apetizer and the food was good, I rather get the food from our local China Garden where you get much better food for half the price,,,

[Ehwmatt]

NICE!! I had a draft one last night at PF Chang's. Good stuff.

Ahh PF Chang's - not sure about that place. So pricey for the quality (some of the mall places we have do some of their dishes better honestly), small food portions (only place I eat Chinese that doesn't fill me to the point of uncomfortableness), and some not that great dishes. Plus I've never seen ONE Chinese or even an Asian working at either one I've been to - how authentic can it be? It's a nice place though, fun to go to still. My ex loved that place. Kinda glad I don't have to go there anymore, we have a much better local Chinese place.

Im with you...While I enjoyed their apetizer and the food was good, I rather get the food from our local China Garden where you get much better food for half the price,,,

Yeah those lettuce wraps are pretty damn good, I assume that's what you're talkin about.

[strangegrey]

There is no "owning" when it comes to opinions. We have our own and I respect Matt's, but I don't have to agree with him and it doesn't make him right, it just means he has an opinion different than mine.

This is not about opinions here. It's a matter of law. The crime should not be dictated by intent. You can't prove intent (with respect to this) in a court of law before proving guilt....and any such 'proof' of hate crime has had the legal equivalent of acting out a trial in a kangaroo court.....

The crime is the crime. You either kill someone or you do not kill someone. Murder is no different black on black as it is white on white or ANY combination in between. The sentencing process after the conviction is where severity is applied and If a judge feels it necessary to be less accomodating to the convict after he or she has been convicted....then so be it.

However, the idea that a hate crime is different from the same exact act is offensive and it creates an unconstitutional mandate to find the person guilty above and beyond his constitutionally protected presumption of innocence before conviction.

Ehwmatt made this point extremely clear (far more than I ever could) and you are letting your emotions get in the way of what is constitutionally protected due process in a trial. You've presented nothing but emotionally charged drivel that doesn't the much needed support for your position.

[Zedul]

I agree... murdering someone is murdering someone, raping is raping, beating them is beating on them. Punishing them less because it "wasn't hate motivated" or more because it was "hate motivated" is just stupid. How could beating someone, raping them, or murdering them be anything other than hate motivated? I mean come on people! Those crimes need to be punished to the max regardless.

Furthermore it's a totally racist law - there was actually an old law, in I think Mississippi where a black person used to get punished more severely for killing a white person than they would killing another black person. It was a "race law" or some crazy thing like that. These hate laws are the exact same thing... completely racist. A crime perpetrated on a person needs to be punished, race should never factor in crime and punishment.

There is no difference between:

"I shot him because he was Chinese"

and

"I shot him because he looked at me funny"

Either one makes you an insane stupid evildoer who needs to be locked up or hung until dead.

[strangegrey]

There is no difference between:

"I shot him because he was Chinese"

and

"I shot him because he looked at me funny"

Excellent point...and it exposses the idiocy of the hate-crime proponents. Well said!

[Rick]

NICE!! I had a draft one last night at PF Chang's. Good stuff.

Ahh PF Chang's - not sure about that place. So pricey for the quality (some of the mall places we have do some of their dishes better honestly), small food portions (only place I eat Chinese that doesn't fill me to the point of uncomfortableness), and some not that great dishes. Plus I've never seen ONE Chinese or even an Asian working at either one I've been to - how authentic can it be? It's a nice place though, fun to go to still. My ex loved that place. Kinda glad I don't have to go there anymore, we have a much better local Chinese place.

It's kind of become our preconcert hangout. There are a few members of this board that are going to the Chickenfoot concert tonight. I'm not going, but I went to hang out with them last night. Was a good time. I had Spicy Chicken a Shiner, and a glass of tea, and got out of there for $25.00 including tip. I thought it was pretty reasonable.

[The Sushi Hunter]

Oh yeah, my wife loves PF Changs. She also loves The Cheesecake Factory. When we were dating, she loved the Olive Garden. We've not been to the Olive Garden in amost 7 years now. But other then that, we usually eat at home 99% of the time. I prefer to cook my own food at home. Because we know our hands and cooking utensils are clean and the ingredients are fresh. And the best part is, when my wife and I are at home cooking, it is a very intimate interaction.

[Ehwmatt]

Oh yeah, my wife loves PF Changs. She also loves The Cheesecake Factory. When we were dating, she loved the Olive Garden. We've not been to the Olive Garden in amost 7 years now. But other then that, we usually eat at home 99% of the time. I prefer to cook my own food at home. Because we know our hands and cooking utensils are clean and the ingredients are fresh. And the best part is, when my wife and I are at home cooking, it is a very intimate interaction.

Isn't that supposed to be the worst part after a couple years?

[AlteredDNA]

Oh yeah, my wife loves PF Changs. She also loves The Cheesecake Factory. When we were dating, she loved the Olive Garden. We've not been to the Olive Garden in amost 7 years now. But other then that, we usually eat at home 99% of the time. I prefer to cook my own food at home. Because we know our hands and cooking utensils are clean and the ingredients are fresh. And the best part is, when my wife and I are at home cooking, it is a very intimate interaction.

Isn't that supposed to be the worst part after a couple years?

Only if you're doing it wrong...

[Ehwmatt]

Here's MORE evidence of what I'm talking about. A very timely opinion piece from a Cleveland Plain Dealer columnist. Phillip Morris is a politically moderate (as far as I can tell from his writings) black man, pointing out the exact same things I've been pointing out! PLEASE READ

http://www.cleveland.com/news/index.ssf ... efini.html

[Ehwmatt]

Read this article ^^^

[Behshad]

^^^ Read the article above this post ^^^

[Ehwmatt]

^^^ Read the article above this post ^^^

[Blueskies]

NICE!! I had a draft one last night at PF Chang's. Good stuff.

Ahh PF Chang's - not sure about that place. So pricey for the quality (some of the mall places we have do some of their dishes better honestly), small food portions (only place I eat Chinese that doesn't fill me to the point of uncomfortableness), and some not that great dishes. Plus I've never seen ONE Chinese or even an Asian working at either one I've been to - how authentic can it be? It's a nice place though, fun to go to still. My ex loved that place. Kinda glad I don't have to go there anymore, we have a much better local Chinese place.

Im with you...While I enjoyed their apetizer and the food was good, I rather get the food from our local China Garden where you get much better food for half the price,,,

Yeah those lettuce wraps are pretty damn good, I assume that's what you're talkin about.

P.F. Changs lettuce wraps are awesome! They make good girly drink Mai Tai's too!

[BobbyinTN]

Bottom line, motive is a factor in every court case when it comes to murder. 1st degree, 2nd degree, involuntary manslaughter, premeditated murder, etc. If hate is a motivation, it should be part of the process for sentencing.

Good article Matt, but it's an opinion piece. I think whites are included in the hate crimes legislation as is everyone who might be attacked because of race or sexuality or whatever motivates assholes to hate so much they think they have to kill.

[stevew2]

Oh yeah, my wife loves PF Changs. She also loves The Cheesecake Factory. When we were dating, she loved the Olive Garden. We've not been to the Olive Garden in amost 7 years now. But other then that, we usually eat at home 99% of the time. I prefer to cook my own food at home. Because we know our hands and cooking utensils are clean and the ingredients are fresh. And the best part is, when my wife and I are at home cooking, it is a very intimate interaction.

that sounded gay, did you wash the dishes ? afterwards?

[strangegrey]

that sounded gay, did you wash the dishes ? afterwards?

Given the recent events around here, you think you can stfu with the gay comments? please?

[stevew2]

that sounded gay, did you wash the dishes ? afterwards?

Given the recent events around here, you think you can stfu with the gay comments? please?

what recent events?

[Blueskies]

Bottom line, motive is a factor in every court case when it comes to murder. 1st degree, 2nd degree, involuntary manslaughter, premeditated murder, etc. If hate is a motivation, it should be part of the process for sentencing.

Good article Matt, but it's an opinion piece. I think whites are included in the hate crimes legislation as is everyone who might be attacked because of race or sexuality or whatever motivates assholes to hate so much they think they have to kill.

I agree.
Motive is always a factor and in an effort to try to curb some motivations that arise then the laws are written by a consensus of need....and history shows that the need was there to write into law punishment for hate due to race and then hate for sexual orientation. When certain attitudes and prejudices abound within a large enough percentage of people that it even becomes justifiable within the group to perpetrate crimes against another group and enough crimes of that nature have been commited to warrant it, then laws are enacted. If shown that a larger percentage of people will not tolerate the hate through legislation then it does help to stem the actions some may have thought to do....not all, but some.

A consensus to draw up laws and assigning certain motives and punishment for them is societies way of saying that it's offensive as well as criminal behavior and the majority want it to be known it will not be tolerated. What better way is there to correct bad behavior then to have certain punishments to fit the crime. To live in a civilized society all uncivilized behavior has to be recognized for what it is and the problem addressed and rules of behavior and punishment written. If the crime is committed soley due to someones extreme prejudice and hate for another segment of people then that has to be recognized, addressed and punishment dealt for it. A consensus was reached to enact hate crimes into law because it was viewed as necessary. Once crimes aren't commited due to the motivation of someones extreme prejudice against anothers ethnicity or sexual orientation, only then could the law be considered no longer necessary.
IMO.

[Ehwmatt]

Bottom line, motive is a factor in every court case when it comes to murder. 1st degree, 2nd degree, involuntary manslaughter, premeditated murder, etc. If hate is a motivation, it should be part of the process for sentencing.

Good article Matt, but it's an opinion piece. I think whites are included in the hate crimes legislation as is everyone who might be attacked because of race or sexuality or whatever motivates assholes to hate so much they think they have to kill.

You still have not provided one shred of empirical evidence to prove that whites are protected in practice or in fact.

You have confused "motive" with "intent," which is how the different degrees of murder are distinguished.

[Blueskies]

Bottom line, motive is a factor in every court case when it comes to murder. 1st degree, 2nd degree, involuntary manslaughter, premeditated murder, etc. If hate is a motivation, it should be part of the process for sentencing.

Good article Matt, but it's an opinion piece. I think whites are included in the hate crimes legislation as is everyone who might be attacked because of race or sexuality or whatever motivates assholes to hate so much they think they have to kill.

You still have not provided one shred of empirical evidence to prove that whites are protected in practice or in fact.

You have confused "motive" with "intent," which is how the different degrees of murder are distinguished.

The law, as I've read it, has no words which discriminate against anyone and is inclusive of all people within society regardless of race, color, national origin, ethnicity, gender or disablity. I take " regardless of race" to mean exactly that. " Hate crimes" are also known as "bias crimes" meaning one or a group that commits a crime due to their bias...no where do I see within " regardless of race" that the law excludes caucasians. If someone commits a crime based on their prejudice towards that person because of their skin color and they are black and the victim is white....if race is their motivation....or their "intention" is to do someone harm due to their race then the law can be applied just as well as the reverse. They can be charged and then the intent has to be proven in a court of law.
I would also like to add:
In Chief Justice Rehnquist's words, "this conduct is thought to inflict greater individual and societal harm.... bias-motivated crimes are more likely to provoke retaliatory crimes, inflict distinct emotional harms on their victims, and incite community unrest."

[Ehwmatt]

Bottom line, motive is a factor in every court case when it comes to murder. 1st degree, 2nd degree, involuntary manslaughter, premeditated murder, etc. If hate is a motivation, it should be part of the process for sentencing.

Good article Matt, but it's an opinion piece. I think whites are included in the hate crimes legislation as is everyone who might be attacked because of race or sexuality or whatever motivates assholes to hate so much they think they have to kill.

You still have not provided one shred of empirical evidence to prove that whites are protected in practice or in fact.

You have confused "motive" with "intent," which is how the different degrees of murder are distinguished.

The law, as I've read it, has no words which discriminate against anyone and is inclusive of all people within society regardless of race, color, national origin, ethnicity, gender or disablity. I take " regardless of race" to mean exactly that. " Hate crimes" are also known as "bias crimes" meaning one or a group that commits a crime due to their bias...no where do I see within " regardless of race" that the law excludes caucasions.
I would also like to add:
In Chief Justice Rehnquist's words, "this conduct is thought to inflict greater individual and societal harm.... bias-motivated crimes are more likely to provoke retaliatory crimes, inflict distinct emotional harms on their victims, and incite community unrest."

Ever heard the adage, don't believe everything you read? The fact of the matter is that, regardless of whatever the statutes say, whites are not protected by hate crime statutes. My challenge, for the 800th time, is to find me empirical evidence of a white (non classified, i.e. not gay) victim of violence, especially by the hands of a black, being protected by a hate crime statute. Any at all. Otherwise, there is no argument. In the real world, empirical evidence and trends trump legislative language and sweeping decrees.

Statutes are only as good as those who enforce and interpret them. The enforcers, including cops and prosecutors, are too afraid to make the statute cut in all ways. The interpreters only have the power to interpret it as far as those who bring the cases before them - so we won't ever see what the judiciary will really do until prosecutors, cops, and legislators grow some balls.

As for Rehnquist's bolded quote, thank you for supporting my own argument - people are sick and tired of blacks beating or killing whites in race-motivated crimes and not being charged the way a white would be. Indeed, retaliatory crimes may follow. Emotional harm and community unrest are already there, and in the case of the latter, growing exponentially. People are getting FED UP

[The Sushi Hunter]

Oh yeah, my wife loves PF Changs. She also loves The Cheesecake Factory. When we were dating, she loved the Olive Garden. We've not been to the Olive Garden in amost 7 years now. But other then that, we usually eat at home 99% of the time. I prefer to cook my own food at home. Because we know our hands and cooking utensils are clean and the ingredients are fresh. And the best part is, when my wife and I are at home cooking, it is a very intimate interaction.

that sounded gay, did you wash the dishes ? afterwards?

Nothing gay about it......in line with nature and very healthy. Affectionate interactions between us both. She tells me what to do and how to do it and I follow. Only thing we have to make sure we do is not forget about what's cooking on the fire so it doesn't burn.

And about the other issue, Yeah, I'd like to see some proof of a white person being victimized in a hate related crime. I don't think I've ever seen or read about a non-white person being prosecuted for a hate crime against a white person. Or is it true that only white people commit hate crimes?

[Ehwmatt]

Oh yeah, my wife loves PF Changs. She also loves The Cheesecake Factory. When we were dating, she loved the Olive Garden. We've not been to the Olive Garden in amost 7 years now. But other then that, we usually eat at home 99% of the time. I prefer to cook my own food at home. Because we know our hands and cooking utensils are clean and the ingredients are fresh. And the best part is, when my wife and I are at home cooking, it is a very intimate interaction.

that sounded gay, did you wash the dishes ? afterwards?

Nothing gay about it......in line with nature and very healthy. Affectionate interactions between us both. She tells me what to do and how to do it and I follow. Only thing we have to make sure we do is not forget about what's cooking on the fire so it doesn't burn.

And about the other issue, Yeah, I'd like to see some proof of a white person being victimized in a hate related crime. I don't think I've ever seen or read about a non-white person being prosecuted for a hate crime against a white person. Or is it true that only white people commit hate crimes?

I have never once read about it, not once. Then the proponents of hate crimes will use the attractive red herring argument that people arguing my position are saying that there is no such thing as a race-motivated attack. That's not the point. The point is everyone is capable of race-motivated hate and violence, and the enforcement of the law needs to be applied with that truism in mind... that is, if there should be any distinction for a "hate" crime at all, which is the other prong of my argument (it shouldn't be... sentencing should take into account overall intent and overall result of the act, no more, no less).

[Blueskies]

Bottom line, motive is a factor in every court case when it comes to murder. 1st degree, 2nd degree, involuntary manslaughter, premeditated murder, etc. If hate is a motivation, it should be part of the process for sentencing.

Good article Matt, but it's an opinion piece. I think whites are included in the hate crimes legislation as is everyone who might be attacked because of race or sexuality or whatever motivates assholes to hate so much they think they have to kill.

You still have not provided one shred of empirical evidence to prove that whites are protected in practice or in fact.

You have confused "motive" with "intent," which is how the different degrees of murder are distinguished.

The law, as I've read it, has no words which discriminate against anyone and is inclusive of all people within society regardless of race, color, national origin, ethnicity, gender or disablity. I take " regardless of race" to mean exactly that. " Hate crimes" are also known as "bias crimes" meaning one or a group that commits a crime due to their bias...no where do I see within " regardless of race" that the law excludes caucasions.
I would also like to add:
In Chief Justice Rehnquist's words, "this conduct is thought to inflict greater individual and societal harm.... bias-motivated crimes are more likely to provoke retaliatory crimes, inflict distinct emotional harms on their victims, and incite community unrest."

Ever heard the adage, don't believe everything you read? The fact of the matter is that, regardless of whatever the statutes say, whites are not protected by hate crime statutes. My challenge, for the 800th time, is to find me empirical evidence of a white (non classified, i.e. not gay) victim of violence, especially by the hands of a black, being protected by a hate crime statute. Any at all. Otherwise, there is no argument. In the real world, empirical evidence and trends trump legislative language and sweeping decrees.

Statutes are only as good as those who enforce and interpret them. The enforcers, including cops and prosecutors, are too afraid to make the statute cut in all ways. The interpreters only have the power to interpret it as far as those who bring the cases before them - so we won't ever see what the judiciary will really do until prosecutors, cops, and legislators grow some balls.

As for Rehnquist's bolded quote, thank you for supporting my own argument - people are sick and tired of blacks beating or killing whites in race-motivated crimes and not being charged the way a white would be. Indeed, retaliatory crimes may follow. Emotional harm and community unrest is already there, and in the case of the latter, growing exponentially. People are getting FED UP

I am not a law student and haven't researched for cases where the law has been enacted in a black on white crime. If you would like to know maybe you could research that. It's up to the prosecution in each jurisdiction to look at each case to decide what laws they want to try the accused for.....which charges they think they have a strong case for. Again...regardless if the law has been applied to a black person before for commiting a hate crime or not, the law clearly states by " regardless of race" that the law CAN be applied if there is proof that prejudice is the motivating factor for the crime.

I disagree with the way your reading the quote....Rehnquists quote is in support of the law not against it...he clearly thinks the law is necessary and doesn't discriminate in the quote with any mention of the law applying only to a specific group. .

[Ehwmatt]

I am not a law student and haven't researched for cases where the law has been enacted in a black on white crime. If you would like to know maybe you could research that. It's up to the prosecution in each jurisdiction to look at each case to decide what laws they want to try the accused for.....which charges they think they have a strong case for. Again...regardless if the law has been applied to a black person before for commiting a hate crime or not, the law clearly states by " regardless of race" that the law CAN be applied if there is proof that prejudice is the motivating factor for the crime.

I have searched for cases and news stories many times, to no avail. My observation that they don't apply equally is shared by many in society, as evidenced by that newspaper article and posts here. You guys are the ones saying it works and it's all hunky dory and equal, so it's up to you to prove me wrong at this point. I really don't think there is a single case or story out there, I really don't.

Now, if you want to live in Neverland with Peter Pan and believe that blacks are not charged with hate crimes because they have yet to commit a race-motivated attack against a white person, that's your prerogative. That was the whole point of my last post: What the law says and what it does are two very different animals on a lot of occasions, as we see here with the uneven application of hate crimes to all violent criminal acts that may involve race.

[Blueskies]

I am not a law student and haven't researched for cases where the law has been enacted in a black on white crime. If you would like to know maybe you could research that. It's up to the prosecution in each jurisdiction to look at each case to decide what laws they want to try the accused for.....which charges they think they have a strong case for. Again...regardless if the law has been applied to a black person before for commiting a hate crime or not, the law clearly states by " regardless of race" that the law CAN be applied if there is proof that prejudice is the motivating factor for the crime.

I have searched for cases and news stories many times, to no avail. My observation that they don't apply equally is shared by many in society, as evidenced by that newspaper article and posts here. You guys are the ones saying it works and it's all hunky dory and equal, so it's up to you to prove me wrong at this point. I really don't think there is a single case or story out there, I really don't.

Now, if you want to live in Neverland with Peter Pan and believe that blacks are not charged with hate crimes because they have yet to commit a race-motivated attack against a white person, that's your prerogative. That was the whole point of my last post: What the law says and what it does are two very different animals on a lot of occasions, as we see here with the uneven application of hate crimes to all violent criminal acts that may involve race.

Since my argument has been about the law and if it can be applied equally....then I've proven that already with the language of the law. If you want to make the case now that the law hasn't been applied equally and you feel theres a case where it should have been applied then it's up to you to bring the case up as evidence in your argument. Maybe the law has been applied in a case of black against white....at least charged...maybe it hasn't...that still doesn't negate the fact that the LAW itself doesn't discriminate as you have previously contended. My argument was also towards the necessity of the law which also went towards your previous contention of it being unnecessary. Now you're point of contention is onto if the law hasn't been applied equilaterally so again...instead of some postulation of opinion due to personal belief ....bring a clear case of inequity as evidence to support your contention.

[Ehwmatt]

I am not a law student and haven't researched for cases where the law has been enacted in a black on white crime. If you would like to know maybe you could research that. It's up to the prosecution in each jurisdiction to look at each case to decide what laws they want to try the accused for.....which charges they think they have a strong case for. Again...regardless if the law has been applied to a black person before for commiting a hate crime or not, the law clearly states by " regardless of race" that the law CAN be applied if there is proof that prejudice is the motivating factor for the crime.

I have searched for cases and news stories many times, to no avail. My observation that they don't apply equally is shared by many in society, as evidenced by that newspaper article and posts here. You guys are the ones saying it works and it's all hunky dory and equal, so it's up to you to prove me wrong at this point. I really don't think there is a single case or story out there, I really don't.

Now, if you want to live in Neverland with Peter Pan and believe that blacks are not charged with hate crimes because they have yet to commit a race-motivated attack against a white person, that's your prerogative. That was the whole point of my last post: What the law says and what it does are two very different animals on a lot of occasions, as we see here with the uneven application of hate crimes to all violent criminal acts that may involve race.

Since my argument has been about the law and if it can be applied equally....then I've proven that already with the language of the law. If you want to make the case now that the law hasn't been applied equally and you feel theres a case where it should have been applied then it's up to you to bring the case up as evidence in your argument. Maybe the law has been applied in a case of black against white....at least charged...maybe it hasn't...that still doesn't negate the fact that the LAW itself doesn't discriminate as you have previously contended. My argument was also towards the necessity of the law which also went towards your previous contention of it being unnecessary. Now you're point of contention is onto if the law hasn't been applied equilaterally so again...instead of some postulation of opinion due to personal belief ....bring a clear case of inequity as evidence to support your contention.

I already have linked to several "clear cases of inequity" several times in this thread. Go back and read them. All you have proven is that you can quote a statute. I am tired of repeating myself, good day

[Blueskies]

I am not a law student and haven't researched for cases where the law has been enacted in a black on white crime. If you would like to know maybe you could research that. It's up to the prosecution in each jurisdiction to look at each case to decide what laws they want to try the accused for.....which charges they think they have a strong case for. Again...regardless if the law has been applied to a black person before for commiting a hate crime or not, the law clearly states by " regardless of race" that the law CAN be applied if there is proof that prejudice is the motivating factor for the crime.

I have searched for cases and news stories many times, to no avail. My observation that they don't apply equally is shared by many in society, as evidenced by that newspaper article and posts here. You guys are the ones saying it works and it's all hunky dory and equal, so it's up to you to prove me wrong at this point. I really don't think there is a single case or story out there, I really don't.

Now, if you want to live in Neverland with Peter Pan and believe that blacks are not charged with hate crimes because they have yet to commit a race-motivated attack against a white person, that's your prerogative. That was the whole point of my last post: What the law says and what it does are two very different animals on a lot of occasions, as we see here with the uneven application of hate crimes to all violent criminal acts that may involve race.

Since my argument has been about the law and if it can be applied equally....then I've proven that already with the language of the law. If you want to make the case now that the law hasn't been applied equally and you feel theres a case where it should have been applied then it's up to you to bring the case up as evidence in your argument. Maybe the law has been applied in a case of black against white....at least charged...maybe it hasn't...that still doesn't negate the fact that the LAW itself doesn't discriminate as you have previously contended. My argument was also towards the necessity of the law which also went towards your previous contention of it being unnecessary. Now you're point of contention is onto if the law hasn't been applied equilaterally so again...instead of some postulation of opinion due to personal belief ....bring a clear case of inequity as evidence to support your contention.

I already have linked to several "clear cases of inequity" several times in this thread. Go back and read them. All you have proven is that you can quote a statute. I am tired of repeating myself, good day

LOL. The statute is what you have been contending so I surely had to bring it up in my argument.
Also..you haven't sited a specific case and argued the merits of your stance that the law should have been applied in that case with evidence.. you have only argued your opinion based on your beliefs. Have a good day as well, E.