theATLDawg Wrote:Thanks for the award winning explanation but let me put it in simpler terms. If you beat up someone because they disrespect your girlfriend or wife, you may have anger issues. If you beat up a gay man, simply because he is gay and you hate gays, it's a much deeper social issue. The reason I thought Finnery was guilty in the first place was because he found himself in the middle of two situations involving hate,ie rape and gay bashing. How often does the average civilized person find themselves ever involved in even one. If it quacks, its probably a duck. I suggest that even if he is innocent of this rape charge, which I still have my doubts, simply because of who he is as a person, than instead of getting on TV talking about how wronged he was, he should worry about getting his MFn act together and get some counceling or this won't be the last crime he commits.

I guess this is the other side, at least part of it, and I appreciate the opinion.

I understand why your first impression of Finnerty was that of guilt, and I guess that sort of information WOULD be important in terms of sentencing... showing a pattern of behaviour... but having "anger issues" would be just as important to me, and probably to the greater society as a whole. Besides, lets say that a gay man honked at a man with anger issues... and that man got out of his car to beat the man up... in the process, he called him gay... but had he been short, tall, fat, skinny, bald, hairy, dark, pale, geeky, ugly or "an Aggie", his anger issues probably would have caused him to try and belittle the person using THAT characteristic... How would you know the difference?? Is that a HATE crime, or an ANGER crime?? If a poor white man steals from a rich black man, is that a crime of color (which would be a hate crime) or one of class (which is not).

To use your own example... Finnerty assaulted a white gay man, and was accused of raping a black woman. It's also possible that he may have had a history of pushing weaker kids into lockers. SO, what is he?? A gay basher, a racist, a sexual predator or a bully?? If he had beaten up a geeky white kid, or raped a white girl, should the punishment for THAT crime be less than for any other?? Is raping a white girl because she wouldn't go out with you less of a crime than raping a black girl because she was black? Either way, that person needs therapy, and should be locked up to protect black women, and white women with taste.

I don't know enough about the guy to be able to charcterize HIM. I'm trying to characterize the crime and punishment.

It's pretty easy to accuse someone of being intolerant... it's pretty hard to prove that you aren't.

theATLDawg Wrote:Thanks for the award winning explanation but let me put it in simpler terms. If you beat up someone because they disrespect your girlfriend or wife, you may have anger issues. If you beat up a gay man, simply because he is gay and you hate gays, it's a much deeper social issue. The reason I thought Finnery was guilty in the first place was because he found himself in the middle of two situations involving hate,ie rape and gay bashing. How often does the average civilized person find themselves ever involved in even one. If it quacks, its probably a duck. I suggest that even if he is innocent of this rape charge, which I still have my doubts, simply because of who he is as a person, than instead of getting on TV talking about how wronged he was, he should worry about getting his MFn act together and get some counceling or this won't be the last crime he commits.

What if you beat up a gay man because he disrespected your girlfriend or wife?

BTW - I love the way you hate Finnery because you think that he is a hateful person. Makes tons of sense, eh?

You're right in at least one point - if he has anger or hate issues, it is likely they will cause him more grief, and counseling would be a good option. You might even look into it yourself.

If I had been put through the wringer like he was, i would have anger issues now even if i had not had them before.

He was not involved in two incidents - he was involved in one. The other turned out to be a total fabrication. Remember, the accuser called Finnerty, 6'3", 195, the "little skinny one". And that was the most damning evidence against him. Remember, the AG declared him innocent. There is no more powerful statement of his uninvolvement in what turns out to be an imaginary event.

Regardless, I will reiterate, the evil done him by Nifong, Sharpton, Jackson, and many others stands on its own. Those three men and their families and friends, and the rest of the Duke lacrosse team members in varying degrees, deserve our sympathy/empathy for their experience, What of the other two? Since they have cleaner records, do you feel sorry for them, and not Finnerty? Do you feel sorry for the ordeal that Seligman and Evans went through? Do your doubts about Finnery extend to his co-defendents? If so, why? They didn't beat up anyone, for any reason.

If a person almost drowns, would you take the attitude that he doesn't deserve your sympathy because the summer before, he pushed another kid into the pool? It seems that you would.

The subject of hate crimes is really separate from the Duke discussion, since the only crime committed there was the wrongful prosecution. But I think it is clear that I think hate crimes legislation is delving into areas that i think are scary, namely the criminalization of attitudes/beliefs. We have been through this before - one time, it was called Mccarthyism. I do not agree with those who would divide our society, whether they be white or black or otherly defined. But it scares me that some groups are well on the way to enacting legislation that would define their attitudes as correct and dissenters as criminals. I think hate speech, like love speech, is all part of free speech. We are on our way to punishing people for expressing thoughts. Even now, there is legislation pending that would criminalize the sermons of a minister if he quotes the Bible about homosexuality. No, he won't go to jail (just yet), but if someone listening to him speak goes out and commits a hate crime, the minister is responsible too. Hambone mentioned a slippery slope. I think we are already on it. I hate having the Nazis march in Skokie, or having the KKK have rallies on our capitol grounds, but I would hate more a nation in which their rights to free speech were surpressed. In these matters, thank you ACLU. (no, hell didn't just freeze over) I wish the ACLU would take up the constitutionality of hate crimes enhancements, but their evenhandedness just goes so far.

theATLDawg Wrote:Thanks for the award winning explanation

Yeah, I guess I must apologize for that rambling speech. It WAS after 3 AM, that is my only excuse. Content stands, though.

well since we are trying to make this about my anger issues, so be it. Everybody has anger issues, but it doesn't make them go out and beat people up just because they are different. And I do not hate Finnery:far from it. I just don't choose to watch a man play the poor ole wronged me act with his parents after what he did to someone else. That is far from hate. And who cares if the girl was black. I stated that it wouldn't be a big stretch that he would be involved in another aggressive act being that he was just involved in another one. Not a far stretch for him. ASk yourself honestly in your lifetime, how many times have you found yourself ever in that situation?, much less twice in one year. Kinda makes you go hmmmmmmmmm. If it quacks, its probably a duck.

theATLDawg Wrote:well since we are trying to make this about my anger issues, so be it. Everybody has anger issues, but it doesn't make them go out and beat people up just because they are different. And I do not hate Finnery:far from it. I just don't choose to watch a man play the poor ole wronged me act with his parents after what he did to someone else. That is far from hate. And who cares if the girl was black. I stated that it wouldn't be a big stretch that he would be involved in another aggressive act being that he was just involved in another one. Not a far stretch for him. ASk yourself honestly in your lifetime, how many times have you found yourself ever in that situation?, much less twice in one year. Kinda makes you go hmmmmmmmmm. If it quacks, its probably a duck.

Well, since you want to get personal, in my youth i did have anger issues, and got into a lot of needless fights, winning most (but certainly not all) of them. I have no idea if the people I fought were 100% heterosexual or even 100% white. I was never prosecuted for those fights, but if I had been, I would hope that I would be prosecuted for my actions and not for the identity of my opponents. I regret my actions then and the hurts I both gave and received. I eventually outgrew my anger issues. Luckily, I was never accused of serious felonies, but if I had been, I would have hoped the jurors wouldn't have included people like you who would have found me guilty of the felony because of the previous fights I had been in. And if Nifong had been allowed to continue with the travesty of his persecution of the Duke players, you would have been his ideal juror - someone willing to overlook the facts and convict on personal animosity.

You disbelieve the accused because of prior acts, but do you disbelieve the accuser because of prior acts? Quack, quack.