Nanny State Connecticut-Crimes against Homeless a Hate Crime?
 

So someone squats on your property and what do you say? "Get off my land" seems to give the impression that you are a felonious hate criminal. Or so it would appear at first glance:


One can think it won't pass in the Senate.
Creating privileges to further cement the voting bloc.
There is an agenda and a bias here it would seem.


SOURCE

It might come to that, but for now it says harrassing or attacking homeless people, as in singling them out for your hate. I don't see it saying anything about telling them to stay off your private property. I think that would come under trespassing laws, and calling the police is always the better choice in that situation anyway.

It will be interesting to see where this goes, but I think you, and most of the posters on that sight, might be jumping the gun a little.

So if I harass some segments of society (homeless, religious minorities) it counts as hate crime, but if I harass everybody else its just normal harassment? :doh:

Especially considering that you would probably be punished more harshly if they convict you of hate crime

Since saying "get off my land" isn't a crime if the person has no legal right to be there then saying it to a homeless person also isn't a crime.

If someone attacks someone for being chinese because they hate chinese people it is a hate crime, if they attack someone with no negative mitigating factor then it isn't.

Kinda flies in the face of the concept of equal protection under the law don't it?

That already happened with VAWA don't you remember? Women are superior beings than men in the eyes of the government and need extra protection from violence despite men being the victims of violence 10x more often than women. Pandering politics is what it's all about today.

Not in the slightest.

Yet.

Paranoid much?
Its a vast conspiracy I tell ya.:rotfl2:

A crime is a crime, different factors present in the commisioning of a crime give different weight in terms of sentencing. Some give a harsher penalty for the crime, some give a more lenient penalty for the same crime.
That is all this is, nothing more nothing less.

Which means the complaints made here about it read like they belong on the Daily Mail letters of outrage page.:yep:

Far from it.
Conspiracy? The vote is before the Senate. No conspiracy.

Sure. And that will all come out after the Senate vote.

I can only gather that you are referring to 'complaints' here in this thread.
That's a bit harsh to liken subsim members that have posted in this thread to the daily fail posters who give insightful and invaluable commentary, all the while upholding the utmost maturity and civility. :up:

So what part of Section 40002 is so hard to understand?
"Nothing in this title shall be construed to prohibit male victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking from receiving benefits
and services under this title."
(source: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-1...9hr3402enr.pdf)

They'e just after the scum who promote bum fights.

This wraps it up in a nutshell.

So how do you tell homeless women to get off the lawn and not lose the house?:haha:

Depends on why you were doing the harassing. Were you harassing the person because they were homeless? Where you harassing the person because they were Jewish? What is the motivating factor behind the crime?

Hate crimes are about the intent behind the crime, not because of the pure chance that someone happens to be a different color or religion than yourself.