Quote:
Originally posted by geep
O.K. Time to for a story.
A dog is hanging out in an predominantly dog neighborhood. He's a little broke and is try to figure out ways to get cash. He sees a cat walking down the street towards him. The cat is afraid to be in a dog neighborhood, but is there on business. The dog figures the cat has money and robs him. During the course of the robbery, the dog assaults the cat physically and verbally, using derogatory language degrading cats in general. He is arrested and indicates that he robbed the cat simply because he was a cat. He states that he doesn't like cats. He also states that it was simply a crime of opportunity, and that he probably would have robbed someone else if the cat had not come along. The cat was clearly chosen to be a victim because of who he was, yet it was not the "motive" for the crime. The case has all the classic elements, including fear, of a hate crime. Should this be a hate crime? If not, why not. Who will be drawing the boundary on what type of thought constitutes a "hate crime". Wouldn't this be intrinsically dangerous and arbitrary?
|
And then the cat votes Republican!!! 
__________________
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."
|