Where a Hispanic Catholic, and a Computer Geek write about Gun Rights, Self Defense and whatever else we can think about.
Here is the jail info & charges:
I may have mentioned once or twice in the blog that Florida tends to be rather inflexible when it comes to morons attacking senior citizens. What Mr. Timms did was bad per se: a thrid degree felony, but with the added penalty of two of the victims being over 65, he graduated to a second degree felony. He went from the possibility of a maximum of 5 years in prison to 15 years.
Let’s see how the judge play it come Monday.
Semi-retired like Vito Corleone before the heart attack. Consiglieri to J.Kb and AWA. I lived in a Gun Control Paradise: It sucked and got people killed. I do believe that Freedom scares the political elites.
Comments are closed.
I do not like different punishments based upon the victims {insert personal characteristic} Either the crime is bad and punished as such, or it’s not. All violent crime is a hate crime.
I like it. It is the inverse application of Disparity of Force. It is not the same going after 20 somethings in their best of health and reflexes where they can fight back versis going after people because they are older, weaker and thus easier targets. Same thing as not all homicides are the same: Some are Murder One and some are manslaughters.
Agree with you Miguel. Disparity of force is the discriminating factor here.
Birdog357 does have a valid point though. When you specify skin color or sexual orientation as the discriminatory factor, it is bad.
I agree with Birdog357 as a matter of libertarian principle — if you punch me in the nose because you don’t like the color of my shirt, I’m not any more injured than if you had punched me in the nose because you didn’t like of the color of my skin. On the other hand, the pragmatist in me says if the state is going to have “hate crimes” on the books that make the skin-tone inspired assault a more serious crime than the shirt-color assault, then the state must punish all skin-tone inspired assaults the same and not make some skin-tones more protected than others.
However, Miguel raising an interesting point. There’s no doubting the millennia of observable experience and centuries of medical/scientific data that the elderly are weaker than the young. Likewise, there’s no doubting that we will all – except for Tina Turner – eventually grow old. Unlike most of the arbitrary identity categories that “hate crime” laws usually protect, there are objective and empirical ways to demonstrate how old a person is…
So, yeah, I’m cool with the law giving extra protection to the elderly. Just as I am with the law giving extra protection to minors and infants.
Slick back his hair, give him a brown khaki shirt and a red and black neck kerchief, and he looks like his German cousin.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_tUctFu46_c
He acts like him too.
Enhanced penalties because the victim is a certain category, vs. “hate crime”, are two entirely different things.
Enhanced penalties are based on a fact — as any observer can easily see, the victim was a child / elderly / a policeman / etc. On the other hand, the concept of “hate crime” is based on fiction and opinion: it says that when the government claims you had certain “wrong thoughts” at the time of the offense, the penalty goes up.
Enhanced penalties because of facts of the crime have been around since the dawn of civilization. “Hate crime” is a newfangled concept invented by the same people who invented “assault weapon”, and for the same purpose: to subvert the objective basis of criminal justice and replace it by “it’s a crime because I feel it should be“.
Are they really charging this terrorist merely with two counts of assault? Clearly missing are two charges of attempted murder.
He’s an antifa in a Dem county, I’m surprised he was charged at all.