Grand Irony

by **OC Mustang** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 12:26 am

I admit to not having read all of the threads dealing with this issue, and I have been admonished by a few of you personally to leave it be and let it all play out. Fine. Dandy. Sorry, no discipline. Gotta say one thing:

Does anybody else see the catch-22 with all this?

To distill, a "metro-sexual" stalker with a serious issue with Willis gets to create grief for him at regular intervals, yet Willis can not react in haste (nor with haymakers) because to do so is arguably a "hate crime". Does anyone else agree that to sort through "appropriate" behavior here, one has to parse the hell out of it? Something is fundamentally wrong with this scene. Way, way too much "power" is dealt the individual who is allegedly the harasser, and now "victim".

And though I offer no condemnation of the individual vis-a-vis his part in this mess, I do feel that strongly that we should not have to qualify our remarks that label his lifestyle choices okay, especially in light of the fact that Willis is simply a kid that wanted this other kid to take his own peccadillos and go away.

by PK » Tue Oct 10, 2006 12:57 am

From my point of view, there is no way to characterize this as a hate crime. He wasn't attached because he was gay...he was attached because he had been stalking Justin and would not quit upon reasonable requests. As I stated in another post, beating the crap out of him was not a prudent thing to do, but understandable. Getting a restraining order would have been better, but I'm not sure when Justin would have had the time to do that. The cry of "hate crime" is a smoke screen designed to diffuse the reality of the stalking crime. The "victim" needs to be read the riot act and given the chance to go on with his education with the proviso that he stay the hell away from Justin or face expulsion from the University...but then no one has asked for my opinion.

by **J.T.supporta** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 12:59 am

In the modern american society today, it is a hate crime because he said the word "FA-" or allegedly said the word.

If the N word was said it would be a hate crime too.

By saying or doing anything that attacks a group or individual is slightly considered a hate crime.

I FEEL THAT IT SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED A HATE CRIME because Willis did not beat the kid up because of his sexual orientation but if Beard wanted to make things worse he would pressure charges due to this being a hate crime.

by **abezontar** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 1:13 am

PK wrote:From my point of view, there is no way to characterize this as a hate crime. He wasn't attached because he was gay...he was attached because he had been stalking Justin and would not quit upon reasonable requests. As I stated in another post, beating the crap out of him was not a prudent thing to do, but understandable. Getting a restraining order would have been better, but I'm not sure when Justin would have had the time to do that. The cry of "hate crime" is a smoke screen designed to diffuse the reality of the stalking crime. The "victim" needs to be read the riot act and given the chance to go on with his education with the proviso that he stay the hell away from Justin or face expulsion from the University...but then no one has asked for my opinion.

What did he attach him to?

by PK » Tue Oct 10, 2006 1:15 am

abezontar wrote:
PK wrote:From my point of view, there is no way to characterize this as a hate crime. He wasn't attached because he was gay...he was attached because he had been stalking Justin and would not quit upon reasonable requests. As I stated in another post, beating the crap out of him was not a prudent thing to do, but understandable. Getting a restraining order would have been better, but I'm not sure when Justin would have had the time to do that. The cry of "hate crime" is a smoke screen designed to diffuse the reality of the stalking crime. The "victim" needs to be read the riot act and given the chance to go on with his education with the proviso that he stay the hell away from Justin or face expulsion from the University...but then no one has asked for my opinion.

What did he attach him to?

His fist.

by **abezontar** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 1:21 am

Wait, so he is dragging him around now? I'm really confused.

by PK » Tue Oct 10, 2006 1:27 am

Confusion is not a new state of mind for you now is it. :wink:

OK let me explain it. He attached the victim to his fist...then he un-attached the victim from his fist. He did this several times and finally someone said "Why are you attaching him to your fist?" To which he responded. "What? Are you crazy? I'm not attaching him to my fist...I'm attacking him. Geez."

by **bigdaddy08091** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 6:24 am

PK wrote:From my point of view, there is no way to characterize this as a hate crime. He wasn't attached because he was gay...he was attached because he had been stalking Justin and would not quit upon reasonable requests. As I stated in another post, beating the crap out of him was not a prudent thing to do, but understandable. Getting a restraining order would have been better, but I'm not sure when Justin would have had the time to do that. The cry of "hate crime" is a smoke screen designed to diffuse the reality of the stalking crime. The "victim" needs to be read the riot act and given the chance to go on with his education with the proviso that he stay the hell away from Justin or face expulsion from the University...but then no one has asked for my opinion.

A restraining order is not reasonable at a University, due the the close proximity the students are in at all times. This is confusing and J-Will, and probably an high percentage of the students would not have known what to do in this situation, A peace bond in J-Wills best option, as well as some counseling for the trauma he has endured during this entire situation.

by **couch 'em** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 6:29 am

If I call some of lesser intelligence than I "stupid" before I hit them, does it become a hate crime? Using a slur means you really want to insult that person. It doesn't mean that you hate all similar people. This is why hate crime laws are rediculous. When is one assault worse than another?

by **me@smu** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 8:16 am

Multiple articles have come out saying that Beard is in fact a "metro-sexual" which from my understanding of the word, is a straight man that "takes care of himself to the extreme". From my understanding, a gay man can not be metrosexual.

Thus, can it really be labeled a hate crime if you use a derogatory term for homo-sexual's on a metro-sexual? Isn't that sort of like calling a black man a "cracker"? (Sorry couldn't think of a non-offensive term that would make hte point better)

by **Bergermeister** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 8:36 am

This is ridiculous. We need a vocabulary list of all of the types of "sexuals" and a list of the insults that can be used without legal recourse.

by **EastStang** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 9:00 am

I was watching CSI Miami last night. And a stalker got a restraining order against the CSI after she slapped him, and then got a job with a crime scene clean-up crew and would show up early just to make her have to leave. Thinking back to the World Cup. Zindane got a red card for head butting a guy who questioned his lineage. As in any sports fight, it is usually the one who retaliates gets flagged, not the instigator.

by **NavyCrimson** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 10:19 am

this 'hate crime' bs is simply that - BS

makes anyone laugh!!!

by **crazy horse** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 10:32 am

Is a metrosexual the same as a 'Dandy'?

by **WorldStang** » Tue Oct 10, 2006 11:26 am

This will blow over.. Willis will do some community service hours.. see a counselor about his "rage" and be re-instated.. from what it sounds like.

But I'm really curious if it will be in time for this weekend?

Grand Irony

Grand Irony

I am sure being rather insensitive

Who is online