<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss"
	xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Assault on police: the newest hate crime?	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.overlawyered.com/2015/10/red-wing-calls-for-attacks-on-police-to-be-considered-hate-crimes/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2015/10/red-wing-calls-for-attacks-on-police-to-be-considered-hate-crimes/</link>
	<description>Chronicling the high cost of our legal system</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 20 Oct 2015 14:52:34 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: John Rohan		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2015/10/red-wing-calls-for-attacks-on-police-to-be-considered-hate-crimes/comment-page-1/#comment-328466</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[John Rohan]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Oct 2015 14:52:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/?p=55705#comment-328466</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Mr. Olson, I totally agree with your objections to this proposal, however these objections would apply to ANY hate crimes, not just against police. But unfortunately that precedent was already set when SCOTUS upheld hate crimes in &lt;i&gt;Wisconsin v. Mitchell&lt;/i&gt;, in 1993. So, if you have hate crime laws at all, then you have to apply them across the board no matter how absurd that is. What would probably happen here eventually is that &quot;occupation&quot; or &quot;profession&quot; will be added as another protected class, in addition to race, gender, etc. So - when someone beats up a taxi driver because he&#039;s frustrated with high fares, it will be a &quot;hate crime&quot;. I almost welcome this; the more absurd the laws get, the more difficult they are to defend, and the greater likelihood they will be dumped entirely. We should punish the crime, not the thought crime behind it.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mr. Olson, I totally agree with your objections to this proposal, however these objections would apply to ANY hate crimes, not just against police. But unfortunately that precedent was already set when SCOTUS upheld hate crimes in <i>Wisconsin v. Mitchell</i>, in 1993. So, if you have hate crime laws at all, then you have to apply them across the board no matter how absurd that is. What would probably happen here eventually is that &#8220;occupation&#8221; or &#8220;profession&#8221; will be added as another protected class, in addition to race, gender, etc. So &#8211; when someone beats up a taxi driver because he&#8217;s frustrated with high fares, it will be a &#8220;hate crime&#8221;. I almost welcome this; the more absurd the laws get, the more difficult they are to defend, and the greater likelihood they will be dumped entirely. We should punish the crime, not the thought crime behind it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
