Are ‘HATE CRIME’ Murder Victims MORE Dead Than Ordinary Ones?

Off my chest…

Maybe it’s all us old people, but it seems that more and more things irritate…maybe it’s just me.
For starters, why does the recently-deceased wind up paying for the funeral? Oh, I know about life insurance, and that it’s to cover last expenses, but how many kids take out a policy on their parents? The answer to that, most likely, is none…so the one carrying the insurance is really paying for the service, right? That doesn’t seem quite fair to me…but I could be wrong. The years that the kids are growing up, the parents pick up the tab and there’s damn few kids that think they should reciprocate when the parents are getting along in years. There…that’s off my chest.

I used to question the difference between a murder and an assassination and then it was explained to me: murders are for regular folks and assassinations are for well-known people. Okay, so we have that difference understood, but does it really make a difference? The victim is just as dead whether they were murdered or assassinated, right?

Let’s put that one aside, now that we understand it, and go to this new “shiny object” glittering before our eyes…it’s called “hate crime”. Now, we’ve straightened ourselves out on murder versus assassination and here comes a new label for us to think about. In the course of a murder of “regular” folks, there may be some epithets thrown around. They can be of a sexual nature, a religious one, or even a national one…and when these words are bandied about in the commission of a murder, or even a lesser crime, it becomes a hate crime. If you are being mugged, as an example, and your mugger doesn’t look like you, that could possibly be a hate crime, if I understand “the rules” about this. Perhaps, while you’re being shot and wounded, the assailant cries out something about your religion, your country, or (heaven forbid) your mother…that’s a hate crime.

Here’s the part that I don’t understand…are you any-the-less dead or wounded if it’s NOT a hate crime?
Isn’t the punishment for the crime, assuming the baddie gets caught, just as stern? Think about that.

I’m a dog-person. Not the little, yappy types, but a dog that I don’t have to bend down to pet.
He/she should be of a gentle nature with a nice face (no pushed-in faces please) and like to be around people. There’s a bunch of them that fit that description…Labrador retrievers, Golden retrievers, Newfoundland retrievers, Wolfhounds and even bloodhounds. If I’m sitting in my easy chair, I like it when the dog puts his paw on my leg and his head in my lap. That’s bonding, folks…and with the right dog it just doesn’t get any better than that. Maybe in the evenings you and the dog take a little walk and more bonding takes place. Oh, and I’m one of those types that talks to my dogs just as if I really believe they understand what I’m saying. Right now I’m without a dog and it feels like there’s a hole in my heart…it takes a dog to fill it. Will Rogers (any of you remember him?) said, “If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went.”

The other day, watching a network that shall remain nameless…at least for this time around, they were talking about the various times that shows would be broadcast. The announcer said that a certain show would be on “at 9 P”. Of course he meant nine PM, but he didn’t say PM, he just said “P”.
Naturally my convoluted mind came up with the idea that the network was paying by the letter, so he didn’t use the “M”. Perhaps the script he read from was being charged by the letter, so they left off the M…that might explain it but I doubt it. From time to time a bigtime TV person will make a grammatical mistake that is so obvious that it surprises me that they still have a job! Could this be the end of the language as we know it and the introduction to something that Orwell called “double-speak”? There are already several things from his novel 1984 that have come to pass, so should we be surprised at anything that happens from this point on?

In the First Amendment to the United States Constitution it says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” How does that sit with the people that march against free speech, who deny speakers their invitation, and who rail about anything that is contrary to their views on any given subject? Are we witnessing the death knell of freedom of speech in our country?

Parting shot: If you haven’t heard of the Taylor Force Act, you should look it up. The bill is named after former US Army officer Taylor Force, who was killed by a Palestinian terrorist who went on a stabbing rampage in Jaffa, Israel, on March 8, 2016. Over 300 million US taxpayer dollars go to the PA each year. Most Americans are unaware of the problem; Senator Lindsey Graham says.

photo credit: Rennett Stowe Graveyard at Night via photopin (license)

Share if you agree the “hate crime” vs. regular crime distinction seems rather trivial.

Larry Usoff

About the author, Larry Usoff: Larry Usoff, US Navy Retired. Articulate. Opinionated. Patriotic. Conservative. Cultured enough so that I can be taken almost anywhere. Makes no excuses for what I say or do, but takes responsibility for them. Duty. Honor. Country. E-mail me at: amafrog@att.net View all articles by Larry Usoff

Like Clash? Like Clash.

Leave a Comment

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.