TexasCHLforum.com

This just makes me sick. If they can prove that they were targeted because of thier disabilities, this should be treated as a hate crime.

http://www.ksat.com/news/Home-invasions ... index.html

Oh, I disagree with the notion of a "hate crime" designation altogether. A victim is a victim, period.

Jumping Frog wrote:Oh, I disagree with the notion of a "hate crime" designation altogether. A victim is a victim, period.

I agree. I do not think or see why one class or set of citizens should be shown preferential treatment over others. There are already laws on the books against these types of events. More laws (even specific ones) will not stop them.

I don't see hate crime I see easy mark

And the Government assists them by (sarcasm emoticon) Taxing and requiring paperwork and jumping through hoops to acquire the Short Barreled Shotgun a Wheelchair bound person could use easier. This is called not infringing on the rights of the disabled to keep and bear arms for self defense in compliance with the Second Amendment and Americans With Disabilities Act.
Quote from first story

We're all defenseless here..

Whereas a longer shotgun used easier by a more mobile non-disabled homeowner gets this headline in the same city, same paper
viewtopic.php?f=108&t=56852" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Quote from second story

He grabbed a shotgun and fired..

Not saying the disabled are forced to be weapon free, as pistols are available just that the right to keep a more effective home defense weapon more suited to their purpose and safer use is being infringed by taxes set by the BATFE; in a similar way to a poll tax which unconstitutionally infringes upon the right to vote. We need some judges who would rule any tax/fee on firearms ammo etc unconstitutional. Someone should organize a class action suit disabled victims vs BATFE some day if we can't get that oppressive branch of government defunded or change it top just being the BATE with no authority over firearms. (Like TABC handles Alcohol, BATE can handle taxing non-constitutionally protected Alcohol and Tobacco, just like they were originally set up to do and keep their mittens away from constitutionally protected things) Think about it.

Jumping Frog wrote:Oh, I disagree with the notion of a "hate crime" designation altogether. A victim is a victim, period.

Agreed. There is hate in a persons mind and heart anytime a crime is committed.

Call it whatever, but there is a special place in hell for those scumbags.

ffemt300 wrote:

Jumping Frog wrote:Oh, I disagree with the notion of a "hate crime" designation altogether. A victim is a victim, period.

Agreed. There is hate in a persons mind and heart anytime a crime is committed.

That is true, but....there is a certain additional moral burden when the criminal preys very deliberately on someone who is defenseless. When they took "The Joker" to jail right after his killing spree, the other inmates were making personal threats against him because one of his victims as a 6 year old girl. Even the hardened criminals realized that some kind of line had been crossed. Ditto for the physically disabled, mentally disabled, etc. That doesn't mean that the perpetrator is any more or less guilty than someone who robs a Rhodes Scholar bodybuilder, nor does it mean that he deserves to be treated by a different set of laws than those reserved for other criminals, but it does mean that our society's collective outrage ought to result in a fuller application of existing penalties as provided for by the law. That's why we have different levels of homicide defined in the law, for instance, and different punishments to match.