if that...You must be afraid then. Afraid they wont be consistent.But, but, you said:There cannot be equality when we do not have equality in our courts and law.
As it stands today the 'reasonable person' standard is not used in our courts if any kind of minority is involved. It then becomes a 'reasonable minority' standard or perspective. For example, normally if Bob and Ted get into a fight because Ted called Bob a bad name, whether Ted used 'fighting words' or not is determined by the 'reasonable person' standard, i.e. what a reasonable person would react to. But if a white man calls a black man a name or vice versa, then it becomes a 'reasonable black man' standard, i.e. what would a reasonable black man do in this situation, and that determines the guilt or innosense of the white person involved. This began with a change in favor of women and against men in a sexual harassment case where the 'reasonable person' standard was tossed for the 'reasonable woman' standard but it has since become applied to all minority cases of any kind.
White male Christian heterosexuals do NOT have equality before the law.
Equality! White Christians Herero or not have superiority before the law. The whole white victim thing wears thin after a while.
Now stop it please.
"Jillian: "hate crime is a conversational description. the police align their language more with the statute.
stop whining,
white people aren't the subject of very many bias crimes. so i'd suggest you put on your big boy pants."
But you said Hate Crime is just a conversational description. I didn't see any reference to it being a Conversational term. Believe me I am not whining. Just need to be caught up with the conversation description. Could you please give me a link?Are you scared?Then arrest him and charge him with a hate crime. Boom, done.
But will they ?
Ummmmm, noooooo, I just want consistency.
I won't be surprised if they just blow it off as random violence.