I think you guys are getting unnecessarily caught up in semantics.

 

Yes, it's known as a hate crime in court. However that phrase has become popularized outside of the context of the courtroom.

 

Would referring to it as "an allegation of a hate crime" be more appropriate? Is it really necessary to get bogged down in this kind of nit picking over a phrase that clearly has both a legal context and a popular usage?

 

 

To me, at least, it has to do with how the phrase is thrown around. Do we actually know that these people did it because they hate transgenders? Again, unless I'm missing some real evidence, this could easily be a bunch of naturally-aggressive morons who felt sexuality threatened and attacked. Had a man been in that tranny's place, he may have gotten the same treatment. Perhaps the people around were laughing because she/he was a tranny, but does that have any bearing on the actual aggressors and even if it does, does it matter? Laughing at someone because they're different hardly constitutes hatred.

 

And personally, I haven't had much experience with the phrase in casual conversation, and I've been in conversations where that would've come up.

I'm not worried about the popular usage has it has no pull it criminal charges like the legal term does.

I think you guys are getting unnecessarily caught up in semantics.

 

Yes, it's known as a hate crime in court. However that phrase has become popularized outside of the context of the courtroom.

 

Would referring to it as "an allegation of a hate crime" be more appropriate? Is it really necessary to get bogged down in this kind of nit picking over a phrase that clearly has both a legal context and a popular usage?

 

 

To me, at least, it has to do with how the phrase is thrown around. Do we actually know that these people did it because they hate transgenders? Again, unless I'm missing some real evidence, this could easily be a bunch of naturally-aggressive morons who felt sexuality threatened and attacked. Had a man been in that tranny's place, he may have gotten the same treatment. Perhaps the people around were laughing because she/he was a tranny, but does that have any bearing on the actual aggressors and even if it does, does it matter? Laughing at someone because they're different hardly constitutes hatred.

 

I would say laughing at someone who is different who is getting is also being violently beaten shows, at the very least, a severe lack of compassion, and most likely hatred.

 

And I think the discussion can certainly center around whether it was a hate crime or not, and that discussion would, necessitate the usage of the term "hate crime."

 

The accusation has been levied that the attack was at least partially motivated by the person's transgender nature. If true, that accusation lends a lot of credence to the idea that it was a hate crime.

 

We are missing a ton of context, here, but I don't see anything wrong with someone deciding based on what has been presented, that it may have been a hate crime. There appears to be a distinct possibility that it was.

I'm not worried about the popular usage has it has no pull it criminal charges like the legal term does.

 

 

Uh.

I think you guys are getting unnecessarily caught up in semantics.

 

Yes, it's known as a hate crime in court. However that phrase has become popularized outside of the context of the courtroom.

 

Would referring to it as "an allegation of a hate crime" be more appropriate? Is it really necessary to get bogged down in this kind of nit picking over a phrase that clearly has both a legal context and a popular usage?

 

 

To me, at least, it has to do with how the phrase is thrown around. Do we actually know that these people did it because they hate transgenders? Again, unless I'm missing some real evidence, this could easily be a bunch of naturally-aggressive morons who felt sexuality threatened and attacked. Had a man been in that tranny's place, he may have gotten the same treatment. Perhaps the people around were laughing because she/he was a tranny, but does that have any bearing on the actual aggressors and even if it does, does it matter? Laughing at someone because they're different hardly constitutes hatred.

 

I would say laughing at someone who is different who is getting is also being violently beaten shows, at the very least, a severe lack of compassion, and most likely hatred.

 

And I think the discussion can certainly center around whether it was a hate crime or not, and that discussion would, necessitate the usage of the term "hate crime."

 

The accusation has been levied that the attack was at least partially motivated by the person's transgender nature. If true, that accusation lends a lot of credence to the idea that it was a hate crime.

 

We are missing a ton of context, here, but I don't see anything wrong with someone deciding based on what has been presented, that it may have been a hate crime. There appears to be a distinct possibility that it was.

 

I wouldn't call laughing at someone who is different and being beaten hatred unless there are actual feelings of hatred there. Some people seem to jump the gun too quickly.

 

Sure, it could use the term but it'd center around the legal definition of a hate crime, or at least that's the definition I'd use.

 

I don't think we have enough to say that this was done because he/she was a tranny and not because he/she entered the bathroom. Hatred is a really strong word. I don't think many people in this country truly hate trannies or gays. Laughing at them really doesn't constitute hatred and neither does hurting them, unless you're hurting them because they're trannies - and I don't think there's enough proof of that. Certainly not enough to convict them of it in a court of law.

I think you guys are getting unnecessarily caught up in semantics.

 

Yes, it's known as a hate crime in court. However that phrase has become popularized outside of the context of the courtroom.

 

Would referring to it as "an allegation of a hate crime" be more appropriate? Is it really necessary to get bogged down in this kind of nit picking over a phrase that clearly has both a legal context and a popular usage?

 

 

To me, at least, it has to do with how the phrase is thrown around. Do we actually know that these people did it because they hate transgenders? Again, unless I'm missing some real evidence, this could easily be a bunch of naturally-aggressive morons who felt sexuality threatened and attacked. Had a man been in that tranny's place, he may have gotten the same treatment. Perhaps the people around were laughing because she/he was a tranny, but does that have any bearing on the actual aggressors and even if it does, does it matter? Laughing at someone because they're different hardly constitutes hatred.

 

I would say laughing at someone who is different who is getting is also being violently beaten shows, at the very least, a severe lack of compassion, and most likely hatred.

 

And I think the discussion can certainly center around whether it was a hate crime or not, and that discussion would, necessitate the usage of the term "hate crime."

 

The accusation has been levied that the attack was at least partially motivated by the person's transgender nature. If true, that accusation lends a lot of credence to the idea that it was a hate crime.

 

We are missing a ton of context, here, but I don't see anything wrong with someone deciding based on what has been presented, that it may have been a hate crime. There appears to be a distinct possibility that it was.

 

I wouldn't call laughing at someone who is different and being beaten hatred unless there are actual feelings of hatred there. Some people seem to jump the gun too quickly.

 

Sure, it could use the term but it'd center around the legal definition of a hate crime, or at least that's the definition I'd use.

 

I don't think we have enough to say that this was done because he/she was a tranny and not because he/she entered the bathroom. Hatred is a really strong word. I don't think many people in this country truly hate trannies or gays. Laughing at them really doesn't constitute hatred and neither does hurting them, unless you're hurting them because they're trannies - and I don't think there's enough proof of that. Certainly not enough to convict them of it in a court of law.

 

The best you can say for the people in the video watching the attack and laughing is that they lack a level of human decency I like to think most people would show. That's the absolute best you can say. That doesn't really bode well for them.

 

Maybe it wasn't a hate crime. I agree, we have very little to go on. However, I can certainly see why someone would draw that conclusion. And the court of public opinion, which is what this discussion is taking place in, has a much lower burden of proof than the court of law. So long as none of use serve in the jury in this case, which seems pretty likely to not happen, I don't see why we have to hold ourselves to the same standards of a court room.

 

And I'm not sure how you define hate. It's pretty hard to define, because it's ephemeral and changes on a situational basis. But I would say there are many millions of people who do hate gay people and transexuals. Maybe you and I have a different definition, but I would say people who call them immoral, condemn them to hell, and would have them treated as second class citizens do have hate for them. Anti-gay and transgender bullying happens all of the time in this country. I think that comes from a place of ignorance and hatred.

Maybe it wasn't a hate crime. I agree, we have very little to go on. However, I can certainly see why someone would draw that conclusion.

 

 

I can too, but it's best for everyone to not jump the gun.

 

Maybe you and I have a different definition, but I would say people who call them immoral, condemn them to hell, and would have them treated as second class citizens do have hate for them.

 

 

That's a pretty piss poor definition, too broad. Then again that's my opinion. Catches too many innocents in the "bigot" label.

Maybe it wasn't a hate crime. I agree, we have very little to go on. However, I can certainly see why someone would draw that conclusion.

 

 

I can too, but it's best for everyone to not jump the gun.

 

Maybe you and I have a different definition, but I would say people who call them immoral, condemn them to hell, and would have them treated as second class citizens do have hate for them.

 

 

That's a pretty piss poor definition, too broad. Then again that's my opinion. Catches too many innocents in the "bigot" label.

 

Why is it best for people on a Marlins' message board to not jump the gun about these people's motives?

 

I think, again, we're dealing with different interpretations of the word "hate."

Who gives a sh*t about whether that's insufficient evidence for a court of law? It doesn't have to be within certain legal categories to be a hate crime in the sense that we are referring to it.

 

By the way, wouldn't it be preferable for the righteous heteros if a cross-dressing man, clearly gay/attracted to men, goes to the women's bathroom, rather than the men's bathroom, where he could "want to stare," for lack of a better phrase?

 

 

Let me reference my post, which started this discussing with entendu. I didn't discuss the sufficiency of the evidence. I can't say for sure how Dr. B was using the term "hate crime," but I agree with bob's discussion of how the term is/can be used in the court of public opinion, and that's what I'm referring to as well.

 

And it seems like RaysFan was either confused (if Dr. B was indeed closer to my view), or he was deliberately trying to refer to the legal standard to make it "harder" for this to be perceived as a hate crime in the court of public opinion. But it requires no such standard for lay discussion. Also, I don't consider it any less a hate crime, within my societal definition, if it was motivated by hatred of cross-dressers. Obviously the bathroom part is a funky twist, and there is a lot of context missing.

 

But my point was that there's really no need to stick only to the legal standards of a hate crime in a lay discussion like this; it's a red herring, or a misunderstanding, or something.

If that's your proof for a hate crime against the transgendered then you're in trouble in a court of law. All I see is a person pissed that a person he assumes is only a cross dresser is using the ladies bathroom. Why can't you just admit there's nothing to substantiate a hate crime right now? I promise it doesn't hurt to be fair and let the investigation play out before judging.

 

Again I'm not saying it's not a hate crime period, I just saying there's no proof right now, and I hate it when people automatically assume "hate crime" when a person belonging to a group protected by hate crime laws is attacked.

 

 

A crime was committed. Assault. Battery. Whatever the f*** it is called. The videographer admitted to the fact that the victim deserved to be beaten up/attacked or that the attack was justifiable due to the fact that the victim was a male entering a female bathroom.

 

However, the victim is not a male. The victim is transgendered, and chooses to be female. Now, it doesn't matter what your opinion on that is. That was not accepted, and thus the crime was committed.

 

Stop trying to sound smart, and stop trying to be technical in the face of defeat. You lose. You're just making yourself look worse. Beyond the shadow of a doubt this was a hate crime, so just stop talking.

and for the record...

 

I steal $500 from you. You know I did it. I even tell you I did it (off the record).

 

There's no way to prove I did it in the court of law, however.

 

Did I commit a crime?

 

Yes, jackass.

The videographer admitted to the fact that the victim deserved to be beaten up/attacked or that the attack was justifiable due to the fact that the victim was a male entering a female bathroom.

 

 

However, the victim is not a male. The victim is transgendered, and chooses to be female. Now, it doesn't matter what your opinion on that is. That was not accepted, and thus the crime was committed.

 

 

 

If this is true, then I don't see how you could classify this as a hate crime in any sense of the word. If these people considered the victim a male and attacked her/him because of it, then it's safe to say that if a regular no-surgery man were to do the same thing, they'd act out the same way. Sure, the tranny may not be a man but she wasn't attacked for being a tranny, she was attacked for being a man. I don't agree with your comment about the victim 'choosing' to be a female. You may look like a female and get all the surgery you want, but it's unfair to hold others accountable for classifying you as a female when you have a giant jaw and a manly physique. He/she can do whatever she wants to her body, but after that it's fair game to classify him/her as what the tranny was or what the tranny is. Just because he/she wants to be considered a female doesn't mean she's going to be considered a female. I hope people can understand and accept that.

and for the record...

 

I steal $500 from you. You know I did it. I even tell you I did it (off the record).

 

There's no way to prove I did it in the court of law, however.

 

Did I commit a crime?

 

Yes, jackass.

 

 

 

I thought we were using the word crime not in the legal sense? I'm sorry, but I'm confused because way too many people on here are using the word in a different sense. Sure, legally you committed a crime and that's provable because you admitted it. These people committed a crime, but in a legal sense you can't prove that it's a hate crime. They didn't admit to attacking the victim because they hated him/her; they admitted to attacking him/her because a man shouldn't be in a woman's bathroom. Whether or not the tranny is a man is a different case altogether - they considered the tranny a man, so one could argue that their reasoning was that a man shouldn't be in a woman's bathroom.

No... they're fully aware that she is transgendered. Therefore, they're fully aware that she wants to be a woman. They just wont accept that. The refuse to recognize her as a transgender.

 

It's like if you were gay and I said 'nope, you're not!'... does that make you... not gay? No.

 

And for the record, one's ignorance isn't a defense. Oh yeah, well we thought she was a man. So we beat her up.... -.-

Ignorance can be a defense if it negates the mens rea of a strict liability crime.

 

And no, I'm not going to translate for you, because I'm a jerk. =]

If they didn't know she was transgendered, they can't be charged with a hate crime, in other words?

No... they're fully aware that she is transgendered. Therefore, they're fully aware that she wants to be a woman. They just wont accept that. The refuse to recognize her as a transgender.

 

It's like if you were gay and I said 'nope, you're not!'... does that make you... not gay? No.

 

And for the record, one's ignorance isn't a defense. Oh yeah, well we thought she was a man. So we beat her up.... -.-

 

 

Yes it is when you're talking of a hate crime. Again, if you consider the person a man (regardless of whether or not they're transgendered) and attack them because they're a man as you consider them to be, you aren't hating transgenders. So if they had a way to verify that this victim would be left unharmed by these aggressors had he/she stepped into the man's bathroom, then it's not a hate crime. We don't have a time machine and you can't tell what these people are thinking and so you can't consider this a hate crime in the legal sense because you can't prove it. In a popular sense, some people have been making an argument that they'd consider it a hate crime. I don't know because I've always considered that phrase to be legal jargon, so I won't comment on that.

 

There's a difference between telling someone they're not gay when they are and telling someone they're not a woman when they consider themselves to be. Homosexuality is purely in one's mind. You can't tell someone what they're thinking, but you can sure as hell tell them how they look like. I don't care if she wants to be a Martian, she was born a man and as long as people can see her as one by her physique, then you can't hold people accountable for considering her a man. It's a matter of her wanting to be considered a woman and people not buying it. You can't force people to consider her a woman when there's a real reason not to: she was born a man and has a man's body. It is very possible that these people saw a man (who just so happens to be a tranny) going into the woman's bathroom and attacked based on that.

If they didn't know she was transgendered, they can't be charged with a hate crime, in other words?

 

 

If you're asking me, the answer is likely yes. I would imagine the statutes say that you have to attack someone because of their status.

 

It would certainly be unconstitutional if every crime committed against a gay person, black person, etc. resulted in automatically harsher sentences.

If they didn't know she was transgendered, they can't be charged with a hate crime, in other words?

 

 

Well that too, but that's not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that they can't call it a hate crime if they attacked her for being a man (as they saw it.)

 

 

I'm going to give you an abstract example, so bear with me. If we could convert these women into men with the same opinions that they had as women and place them in that same situation, except that the tranny walks into a man's bathroom. If the tranny is attacked, then they're attacking her because she's a tranny and not because she entered the wrong bathroom, but if they let her go then they attacked her as women because they truly believed that she belonged in the man's bathroom. In all senses, they thought she was a man and attacked her because of it. The fact that she considers herself a woman wouldn't matter at that point if we were discussing a hate crime, because there's no hatred of anything but a man going into a woman's bathroom.

 

I personally think it's reasonable to consider trannies who were previously male still men. At least that's how I view them. Regardless of how one wants to be viewed, I tend to base my opinion on what I see, not what they want me to see. I'll respect their wishes to be called a woman or whatever because it doesn't hurt me or bother me, but they'll still be men to me, as I'm sure they are to many.

No... they're fully aware that she is transgendered. Therefore, they're fully aware that she wants to be a woman. They just wont accept that. The refuse to recognize her as a transgender.

 

It's like if you were gay and I said 'nope, you're not!'... does that make you... not gay? No.

 

And for the record, one's ignorance isn't a defense. Oh yeah, well we thought she was a man. So we beat her up.... -.-

 

 

I must have missed this detail because I have yet to read that they knew she was a tranny.

I must have missed this detail because I have yet to read that they knew she was a tranny.

 

 

*sigh* Must I Show You Tha Ghetto Facebook Post Where It Says That Was Not a Woman That Was A Man?

 

 

 

There's further facebook image clips of Mr. Charm Hackett stating that he 'doesn't care what your gender/sex is, but that was a man in the woman's bathroom with male parts and he was asked to leave and he got smart with everyone'.

 

They were fully aware of her transgendered status. They refused to accept it because they chose not to. Quit trying to carry underdog status. Nobody likes the Rays.

 

And to what I'd said before, I believe Entendu was on the case. Ignorance is a defense if you're fully dead ignorant. However, I can't just say I beat the sh*t out of somebody because I didn't know any better...that doesn't work. My ass I don't know any better. Just like they can and will deny the fact that they knew she was transgendered. When in reality, they knew downright that she was. It was the motivation of the attack. They didn't want her in the male's bathroom because she's a pre-op tranny.

I personally think it's reasonable to consider trannies who were previously male still men. At least that's how I view them. Regardless of how one wants to be viewed, I tend to base my opinion on what I see, not what they want me to see. I'll respect their wishes to be called a woman or whatever because it doesn't hurt me or bother me, but they'll still be men to me, as I'm sure they are to many.

 

 

Right, but we're not debating that right now. We weren't looking to define transgender, homosexual, lesbian, bisexual, pansexual, whatever. The definition exists. Take it up with your lawmaker if you have a problem. It's still a very vague definition, but it is what it is.

I personally think it's reasonable to consider trannies who were previously male still men. At least that's how I view them. Regardless of how one wants to be viewed, I tend to base my opinion on what I see, not what they want me to see. I'll respect their wishes to be called a woman or whatever because it doesn't hurt me or bother me, but they'll still be men to me, as I'm sure they are to many.

 

 

Right, but we're not debating that right now. We weren't looking to define transgender, homosexual, lesbian, bisexual, pansexual, whatever. The definition exists. Take it up with your lawmaker if you have a problem. It's still a very vague definition, but it is what it is.

 

Ok, but what about the rest of what I said?

Ok, but what about the rest of what I said?

 

 

It's not about what they believe about a transgendered person.

 

I would agree with you that if these girls and employees had no knowledge of Chrissy Lee Polis being transgendered, it would not be a hate crime but rather a series of coincidental events. However, they knew she was transgendered. They chose to attack her because she was a transgendered female (still with a penis) and therefore decided that biologically she did not belong in the woman's room, despite socially what she identifies herself as.

 

It's because they're ignorant people. Close-minded and uneducated, which leads them to be hateful. They did not accept her for who she is because of their ignorance. And so they hated on her when she tried to be who she is. It doesn't matter if they 'believe' she's a man. Biologically she still is a man. The definition of transgender has nothing to do with strictly having a sex change though.

 

You're right, they could've thought she was a man. Because she still is a man. However, they were still aware that she was a transgender. Whether or not they know their laws on transgenders using public restrooms isn't the law's concern. It's their own. But without a doubt they did beat her up due to the fact that she was transgendered, entering the opposite restroom of her biological sex. Notice the bit in italics. This is like a group of people beating up someone they presume was an illegal alien for 'breaking the law' by being here in this country illegally. They attacked the person based presume to be an illegal alien simply due to the fact that this person speaks poor English and they figure he is breaking the law by being here. However, it turns out this man has citizenship and has every right to be here.

 

There are so many things wrong with such a case. The fact is the man was judged due to his culture/ethnicity as opposed to the true facts. It's a hate crime. Chrissy Lee Polis was judged based off her sexuality first.

*sigh* Must I Show You Tha Ghetto Facebook Post Where It Says That Was Not a Woman That Was A Man?

 

 

 

There's further facebook image clips of Mr. Charm Hackett stating that he 'doesn't care what your gender/sex is, but that was a man in the woman's bathroom with male parts and he was asked to leave and he got smart with everyone'.

 

They were fully aware of her transgendered status. They refused to accept it because they chose not to.

 

 

You can cite that all day long but not word in there say "we knew she was a tranny". The proof in this is that they keep calling her a man in woman's clothing.

 

Quit trying to carry underdog status. Nobody likes the Rays.

 

 

You start losing the debate so you attack my team with false accusations? What do the Rays have to do with this?