# Blue Lives Matter



## dblack (May 27, 2016)

For those of you who don't yet understand why protected classes law, despite good intentions, is a bad idea - some food for thought:



> Louisiana’s ‘Blue Lives Matter’ bill just became law
> 
> Louisana Gov. John Bel Edwards (D) signed the “Blue Lives Matter” bill into law Thursday, making the state the first in the nation where public safety workers are considered a protected class under hate-crime law. ...


----------



## MarathonMike (May 27, 2016)

I don't understand your statement.


----------



## dblack (May 28, 2016)

MarathonMike said:


> I don't understand your statement.



This is a follow up on several conversations we've had on the boards about what has become a pillar of civil rights legislation, namely the concept of "protected classes". I've long held that government focused on giving 'special rights to special people' is bad government, that it will lead to less equality under the law and undermine liberal democracy.

The article cited is about a law passed in Louisiana extending protected class status to "public safety workers".


----------



## airplanemechanic (May 28, 2016)

It simply increases the penalties for hate crimes targeted at first responders and cops. What's the big deal?


----------



## dblack (May 28, 2016)

airplanemechanic said:


> It simply increases the penalties for hate crimes targeted at first responders and cops. What's the big deal?


It's a big deal because it grants authority figures special rights and protections - rights and protections that 'mere' citizens don't get. That's fundamentally un-American.


----------



## airplanemechanic (May 28, 2016)

It has nothing to do with any right or protection.

By all means, please specify the "right" or "protection" that this law affords first responders that the average citizen doesn't have. Please be specific.


----------



## emilynghiem (May 30, 2016)

dblack said:


> MarathonMike said:
> 
> 
> > I don't understand your statement.
> ...



Dear dblack
are you saying that if we/the law start SPECIFYING PARTICULAR citizens,
then to be fair to all others, ALL such subgroups would need to be SPECIFICALLY NAMED
and PROTECTED IN WRITING to have equal protections as the other NAMED groups?

(ie we can say religious freedom without naming Buddhists, Christians, Eastern religions,
secular humanists or nontheists as protected TYPES or groups. because if we start
naming some types, we'd have to name all such types to give them equal legal status and protection)


----------



## dblack (May 30, 2016)

emilynghiem said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > MarathonMike said:
> ...



Ultimately, I'm saying the precedent of carving out special 'protected classes' was a bad idea, and that this law is a good example of why.

Ever since the idea of protected classes was introduced, libertarians have been arguing against it because of the way it actually undermines equal protection, despite the opposite intention. Advocates dismissed our concerns as 'slippery slope', or as cover for bigotry and racism. They claimed that indulging a few, ad-hoc social problems with special protections was warranted and would only ever be used to protect the powerless. But nothing about the concept of protected classes constrains it to that purpose and the Louisiana law shows how it can play out.

We've accepted the idea that government can grant special protections to special interests as it sees fit. Advocates of such state intervention seem to have a naive view that it will only ever be used to protect the powerless, and libertarians have been shouted down for pointing out this error. I'm now wondering how the Louisiana law will affect their attitudes, especially as it is being used as a deliberate 'in-your-face' counter to the genuine civil rights issues raised by 'Black Lives Matter'.


----------



## MarathonMike (May 30, 2016)

Ok I understand and you make some valid points. 
But why do consider the actions of #BLM to be legitimate when they are doing exactly what you are describing? Look at the consequences of "protectionism" in this context. You have Police that are being harassed and filmed by 20 cell phones on every encounter. They are in effect "protecting" the criminal. Would you like to be an urban Cop in this day and age? It's an impossible job. The actions of  #BLM are making Black lives worse by turning young Blacks into a protected class.


----------



## airplanemechanic (May 30, 2016)

Dblack, can I assume you cannot answer the question I asked in post 6 three days ago?


----------



## dblack (May 30, 2016)

airplanemechanic said:


> Dblack, can I assume you cannot answer the question I asked in post 6 three days ago?



Assume whatever you like.


----------



## dblack (May 30, 2016)

MarathonMike said:


> Ok I understand and you make some valid points.
> But why do consider the actions of #BLM to be legitimate when they are doing exactly what you are describing?Look at the consequences of "protectionism" in this context. You have Police that are being harassed and filmed by 20 cell phones on every encounter. They are in effect "protecting" the criminal. Would you like to be an urban Cop in this day and age? It's an impossible job. The actions of  #BLM are making Black lives worse by turning young Blacks into a protected class.



I didn't say that I consider the actions of #BLM legitimate. I said that the movement raises legitimate civil rights issues. My point of view is that government shouldn't be in the business of offering special protections at all, that to do so actually undermines equal rights.


----------



## my2¢ (May 30, 2016)

It seems to me equal justice means hate crimes should have a blind eye as to the victim and should focus on the intent of the aggressor.  If we find the situation becomes hate crimes against police and firemen are requiring less evidence to prosecute than those against minority victims I think that is telling and warrants review of the law.  However, the article more or less assumes that will be the case.  Hopefully the law will raise awareness of hate crimes, including awareness by the men and women  in blue.


----------



## dblack (May 31, 2016)

my2¢ said:


> It seems to me equal justice means hate crimes should have a blind eye as to the victim and should focus on the intent of the aggressor.  If we find the situation becomes hate crimes against police and firemen are requiring less evidence to prosecute than those against minority victims I think that is telling and warrants review of the law.  However, the article more or less assumes that will be the case.  Hopefully the law will raise awareness of hate crimes, including awareness by the men and women  in blue.



My interest in this issue is mostly centered on the Constitutionality of protected classes, and the hypocrisy it provokes on 'both sides of the aisle'. But it is a sad observation that we're making it "more illegal" to commit a crime targeting a police officer (and implicitly _less_ illegal to target anyone else).

The only sane response to the excesses of the "Black Lives Matter" campaign is "All Lives Matter".

It's like we're just giving up on the idea of equal rights and conceding to government that amounts to everyone vying for special privileges.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 31, 2016)

dblack said:


> For those of you who don't yet understand why protected classes law, despite good intentions, is a bad idea - some food for thought:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This fails as a false comparison fallacy.

And that the Constitution recognizes suspect and protected classes of citizens is consistent with safeguarding the rights of the people as intended by the Framers.


----------



## Ravi (May 31, 2016)

dblack said:


> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> > It simply increases the penalties for hate crimes targeted at first responders and cops. What's the big deal?
> ...


Will politicians be next? This is ridiculous, after all people choose to become public safety employees.


----------



## dblack (May 31, 2016)

Ravi said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > airplanemechanic said:
> ...



 - welcome home.


----------



## dblack (May 31, 2016)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > For those of you who don't yet understand why protected classes law, despite good intentions, is a bad idea - some food for thought:
> ...



Care to support that (unsupported) claim? What is false about the comparison?


----------



## Ravi (May 31, 2016)

Just what the police need, another reason to feel they are above the law.


----------



## dblack (May 31, 2016)

Ravi said:


> Just what the police need, another reason to feel they are above the law.



Ok... now I don't want to jump all over you here, but you've tripped upon the reason I started this thread. Can you now see why 'protected classes' are a bad idea? How we should never allow anyone to be 'above the law' and, instead, task the government with protecting everyone's rights equally?


----------



## Ravi (May 31, 2016)

dblack said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Just what the police need, another reason to feel they are above the law.
> ...


I don't have a problem with hate crime laws, after all they cover everyone since everyone has a gender, a "race," and a religion. But those are things that people cannot choose, (except for religion), while you can choose not to be a public servant. And they already have the death penalty in LA if a police officer is killed.


----------



## dblack (May 31, 2016)

Ravi said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Oh... so you're ok with all this? I guess I misunderstood your earlier response.


----------



## Ravi (May 31, 2016)

dblack said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


No, I'm not okay with it. I think pretending that a profession is somehow the same thing as a race, gender, or religion is ridiculous. And it will make cops think they are better than everyone else, something they don't need help with.


----------



## dblack (May 31, 2016)

Ravi said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



How is it different? Why should someone's race grant them more rights than their choice of profession?


----------



## Ravi (May 31, 2016)

dblack said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


Every race is protected by hate crime laws so you saying "someone" has more rights is a bit silly.

You cannot choose your race. You can choose your profession.


----------



## dblack (May 31, 2016)

Ravi said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Alright. Nevermind.


----------



## airplanemechanic (May 31, 2016)

dblack said:


> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> > Dblack, can I assume you cannot answer the question I asked in post 6 three days ago?
> ...



Well considering I asked you specifically what "rights" or "privileges" this law afforded first responders and after 4 days you failed to respond, I will safely assume that you can't answer that.

Thus, you're full of shit.

This law isn't just about cops. ITS ABOUT FIRST RESPONDERS. This includes firefighters, paramedics, etc.


----------



## Timmy (May 31, 2016)

I believe most places have had laws like this on the books for years . For example " assaulting a police officer " or "threats against judges ".


----------



## dblack (Jun 1, 2016)

Ravi said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



So would you remove all protected classes that are defined by choices?


----------



## dblack (Jun 1, 2016)

Timmy said:


> I believe most places have had laws like this on the books for years . For example " assaulting a police officer " or "threats against judges ".



Some do, and I'd argue they are wrong for the same reasons, but this is the first time that I know of where they've tied it to 'protected class' status.  This is important because many of us have raised concerns that the 'protected class' precedent would be expanded, and it has.  The sad irony is that the civil rights movement, initially focused squarely on ensuring equal rights for all, has been subverted into government that does the opposite, that protects rights decidedly unequally.


----------



## Ravi (Jun 1, 2016)

dblack said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


Maybe. But I don't think you could remove the religious exemption even though religion is a choice.


----------



## dblack (Jun 1, 2016)

Ravi said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



And then there's the endless grey areas. Is sexual preference a 'choice'? The choice to have children? (it's illegal in some arenas to discriminate based on whether someone has children). I don't think it matters, but even if you hang your hat on the 'choice' criteria, it's hardly a limiting factor, and invites all kinds of philosophical questions around how much 'choice' any of us really have (determinism, free will, et.al)


----------



## Ravi (Jun 1, 2016)

dblack said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


I think sexual preference is innate and as long as you aren't violating someone else's rights you shouldn't be discriminated for it.

So is reproducing though I think the tax code favors breeders unfairly, speaking as a breeder.


----------



## airplanemechanic (Jun 2, 2016)

Dblack I've asked you twice, now I'll ask you a 3rd and final time before labeling you a troll. What specific "right" or "privilege" are first responders getting from this new law? 

Be specific and quote the law. Thanks in advance.


----------



## dblack (Jun 3, 2016)

airplanemechanic said:


> Dblack I've asked you twice, now I'll ask you a 3rd and final time before labeling you a troll. What specific "right" or "privilege" are first responders getting from this new law?
> 
> Be specific and quote the law. Thanks in advance.



Jeez... okay. If it wasn't entirely clear, I was ignoring your earlier posts. I didn't see your demand (it wasn't a question) as serious, and the pomposity is tedious ("Be specific"?  Do you see yourself as some kind of 'quizmaster'?).

Anyway, on the outside chance your confusion is sincere, and that you're not simply an authoritarian defending authority at all costs, I'll indulge.

Government protects our rights via laws, specifically, by penalizing those who violate them. If the penalties are more severe for violating the rights of one group of people, and less severe (or non-existent) for violating the rights of another group, the second group is receiving less protection from government, the first, more.

In this case, the Louisiana law grants "protected class" status to first responders (police officers, firefighters and emergency medical service personnel) and makes it illegal to target them based on their profession. Other professions don't get this special protection. If you throw a rock through a cop's window because you hate cops, you'll be punished more severely than if you throw rock through a lawyer's window because you hate lawyers. This gives those who fall under the "protected class" more protection. It gives first responders the "right" to not to be targeted because of their profession. It doesn't give that right to bankers, or auto-mechanics, or the unemployed.


----------

