Lynching bill has nothing to do with actual lynching

editing




Apologies for that.

Anyway, in perusing various forums regarding the incident surrounding Jessie Smollett (see related ATS threads below), the point was made that Kamala Harris' anti lynching bill has nothing to do with actual lynching other than the title.

To whit;

Ҥ 250. Lynching

“(a) In general.—

“(1) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN.—If 2 or more persons willfully cause bodily injury to any other person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person—

“(A) each shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if bodily injury results from the offense; or

“(B) each shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if death results from the offense or if the offense includes kidnapping or aggravated sexual abuse.

“(2) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RELIGION, NATIONAL ORIGIN, GENDER, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY, OR DISABILITY.—

“(A) IN GENERAL.—If 2 or more persons, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B), willfully cause bodily injury to any other person because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person—

S.3178 — 115th Congress (2017-2018)

Lynching generally refers to the hanging of an individual:

verb (used with object)
to put to death, especially by hanging, by mob action and without legal authority.

Dictionary.co,

The anti lynching bill seems to leave this very relevant portion out and instead describes the act as, "2 or more persons willfully cause bodily injury to any other person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person."

Do we not already have laws on the books which would allow for the punishment of any sort of violent attack upon another individual regardless of the reasons for said attack aside from self defense?

This being the case, what purpose does the anti lynching bill serve other than to give special protections to certain groups of people?

Furthermore, the bill also states:

“(B) CIRCUMSTANCES DESCRIBED.—For purposes of subparagraph (A), the circumstances described in this subparagraph are that—

“(i) the conduct described in subparagraph (A) occurs during the course of, or as the result of, the travel of the defendant or the victim—

“(I) across a State line or national border; or

“(II) using a phone, the internet, the mail, or any other channel, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce;

“(ii) the defendant uses a phone, the internet, the mail, or any other channel, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce in connection with the conduct described in subparagraph (A)

emphasis mine

How can a person use a phone, the internet to cause bodily harm to an individual? Mail I can see as there have been incidences of actual harm caused via mail, but to include phone or internet seems a bit off to me.

Is this bill codifying thought crime?

There are verifiable connections between Jussie Smollett and Kamala Harris


Los Angeles, Ca, USA. 15th Jan, 2018. U.S. Senator Kamala Harris, Jussie Smollett, Jurnee Smollett-Bell, at the 2018 Kingdom Day Parade in honoring the life and legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. at Baldwin Hills in Los Angeles, California on January 15, 2018. Credit: Faye Sadou/Media Punch/Alamy Live News

Is Harris the high profile individual Smollett is protecting?

Jussie Smollett sent Chicago police his redacted phone records to protect the privacy of his personal contacts and high-profile individuals as authorities continue to investigate his reported attack, the actor's representative said Tuesday.

Jussie Smollett Has Sent Chicago Police Redacted Phone Records To Protect "High-Profile Individuals" - Buzzfeed

Related ATS threads:

Empire star involved in possible hate hoax?

BREAKING: Smollett Orchestrated Attack, Sources Say

Smollett case getting closer.....

Chicago PD Intend TO CHARGE JUSSIE SMOLLETT IF a false report was filed.

Once again, I offer my apologies for the mispost.

What says ATS?

The last lynching happened in 1981.

So why after 38 years is it suddenly a priority?

Answer.

The lynching bill isn't about lynching.

Besides it already being against the law.

a reply to: neo96

Agreed.

I submit that this bill is merely another brick in the wall of codifying thought crime.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

what purpose does the anti lynching bill serve other than to give special protections to certain groups of people? 

When it gets vetoed by Trump or scuttled in the Senate the headlines can blast:

Trump supports Lynching!

And that's all they want really. Just more clickbait fodder.

Hmmmm seems the focus of this is to add electronic communicstions, including social media platforms, in order to get a conspiracy charge. Kinds like the girl who just got manslaughter for encouraging her ex to kill himself. She did not try to intervene.

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
... SNIP ...
How can a person use a phone, the internet to cause bodily harm to an individual? Mail I can see as there have been incidences of actual harm caused via mail, but to include phone or internet seems a bit off to me.
... SNIP ...

I interpret that as making swatting illegal. The act of calling into a police line to report a false terror or other life threatening act upon someone to cause the police to break in "with prejudice". Even though, all aspects of that are already illegal....seems this just states it in one section specifically.

The title of the bill is really the kicker. As mentioned before, if it is veto'd then the battle cry from the DNC will definitely be, "Trump supports Lynching" by vetoing Anti-Lynching bill. The ignorant masses don't care that there is nothing in the bill about lynching, details are irrelevant. Headlines are what stir up the "feelz".

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

if you read and understand all that, then put it in context of the Jussie Smollett incident, and it happens that Jussie and the brothers from Nigeria did orchestrate this, then they would all be in some really, really hot water based on the wording of this bill. He had really better hope the cops can do a better job of finding his attackers then the cops did with Seth Rich. At least before this bill passes.

a reply to: watchitburn
and
a reply to: Krakatoa

I did not even consider the possibility of a Trump hatefest which would ensue from his vetoing of this bill.

Another very plausible possibility to the purpose behind this legislation that adds nothing to laws already on the books.

I see it also as a possible feather in the cap for Harris, who has not done much of note giving her some gravitas in any potential future presidential run.

Those who cry "lynching" and claim victim hood do not want the term and idea to fade away.

Apparently this Bill is in Limbo.

12/19/2018-9:21pm
House
Held at the desk.

Has this expired with the New 116th Congress?

Maybe that's why we saw a hoax perpetrated by ???????

IF this bill would be applied equally to whites and blacks who commit racially motivated crimes it could be worthwhile, however, we all know it will be applied only one direction which makes it unconstitutional.

"How can a person use a phone, the internet to cause bodily harm to an individual? Mail I can see as there have been incidences of actual harm caused via mail, but to include phone or internet seems a bit off to me. Is this bill codifying thought crime?"

No, because it specifies "cause [of] bodily harm." I think it refers to using electronic media in association with commission of a crime that results in bodily harm.

For instance, if a person exhorts others, e.g., via Faceboob, etc., to commit a crime, the person who posted the exhortation can be charged as an accomplice, even though they may have been miles from the crime when it occurred.

Likewise, if a person texts another person to plan the commission of a racially-motivated crime that results in bodily harm, the use of the phone/TXT in association with the crime is an added charge; that allows the court to ratchet up the penalty.

originally posted by: xuenchen
Apparently this Bill is in Limbo.

12/19/2018-9:21pm
House
Held at the desk.

Has this expired with the New 116th Congress?

Maybe that's why we saw a hoax perpetrated by ???????

They wouldn't do that would they? /sarc

However, it would fall under "by any means necessary".

originally posted by: Metallicus
IF this bill would be applied equally to whites and blacks who commit racially motivated crimes it could be worthwhile, however, we all know it will be applied only one direction which makes it unconstitutional.

That was my first concern as well. Given this part...

“(B) each shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if death results from the offense or if the offense includes kidnapping or aggravated sexual abuse.

... those four African Americans who kidnapped that white teenager and filmed themselves torturing him, and hitting him on the head with knives, could have got life imprisonment. But we all know that would never happen.

Actually, maybe that's what the later reference to electronic devices and social media are about - people who film assaults and share it via email, liveleak and FB, etc?

So if I'm understanding this correctly, and please bear in mind I'm not American, what they are saying is that the laws that already exist to protect the US population are not sufficient for them, them being the black population and they want their own laws???? What next in this self segregation society they are creating?

a reply to: PhyllidaDavenport

All for the sake of diversity 😀

This is a stupid bill and is nothing more than a stage to allow Kamala Harris and Corey Booker to grandstand for their base pre 2020.

We already have this kind of behavior covered. Those two senators are doing nothing but pushing racial division and animosity.

It's how they keep their base stirred up and thinking that lynchings are actually a "thing". "Vote for me and I'll put an end to LYNCHINGS and mean words used against people of color".

The Smollett incident with the rope around his neck is just plain UNBELIEVABLE, and was used to draw attention to this bill that has been sitting on a desk waiting for the right time for an Academy Award Winning Performance by Harris, Booker, and supporting actor, Smollett.

originally posted by: neo96
The last lynching happened in 1981.

So why after 38 years is it suddenly a priority?

Answer.

The lynching bill isn't about lynching.

Besides it already being against the law.

A bit of history:
A total of less than 5,000 lynchings were reported in the US from the Civil War until present.
Of these 1/4 have been White or Hispanic.
How many interracial murders do we have every year?
They beat the number of lynchings every decade quite handily.
Another weaponized word, made to trigger certain emotional responses.
Meanwhile reality marches on unmolested and mostly unnoticed except by those directly affected.
Crime rates have become a taboo subject.
Sticking our heads in the sand will work great.
Look what's it's done for our national debt.

a reply to: xuenchen

hmm diverse but separate then....wonder how that works

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

I wish someone would introduce a bill to repeal every bill in which the title does not accurately describe its content.