Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Rumor · Aug 29, 2007, 07:29 PM

Ruppert lawyers attack City’s stance | Chicago Free Press

The guy was beaten by the cops, called obscenities and had to get stitches.

Now that it is going to court, Chicago says that he can't file for equal protection under the 14th Amendment of the Consitution since they say it doesn't cover homosexuals.

turtle777 · Aug 29, 2007, 08:01 PM

Only in Amaraca !

-t

macintologist · Aug 29, 2007, 10:01 PM

I think aggravated battery laws should apply harsher penalties upon the conviction of a law officer. Just my opinion.

Chuckit · Aug 29, 2007, 10:06 PM

I'm honestly perplexed. I want to see the argument that these attorneys are making. What part of "all persons" seems unclear to them? Unless they're trying to argue that gays are outside the government's jurisdiction, I don't see how they could argue that anyone is excluded from the equal protection clause.

Captain Obvious · Aug 30, 2007, 12:18 AM

they beat him with their words of hate

lol... nice

So I couldn't find much about this anywhere but the fag rag news sources. This doesn't lend much credibility to the accusations. Chicago activists of all flavors love to get their panties in a bunch for anything that can be labeled a "hate crime" against a minority. This tells me that his accusations and case must be pretty weak and hard to substantiate if more pressrooms are ignoring it.

Anyway, there are probably a half dozen counts they are trying to get the police charged on. Equal Protection is one of those counts. And his lawyer is trying to say that he deserves special protection under the fourteenth amendment pertaining his sexuality and the law. Its a stunt. Its a way for his lawyers to try and get this case taken to up the SC so they can get the sexual orientation recognized as a specific group denied equal protection.
And why you ask? Because its will be a great jumping off point to force the feds to legalize gay marriage. This charge has nothing to do with accusations of being unjustifiably beaten.

The city is saying that this one count is total horseshit and on the grounds of being part of the entire suit then the whole case should be thrown out. This is all procedural stuff that's over most of your heads. This is going to go back and forth for technical reasons. He can file for it but the his lawyers justification for it being considered valid may be flawed. My guess is that they will have to refile without the equal protection count because its a huge stretch.

Captain Obvious · Aug 30, 2007, 12:26 AM

BTW:

In the United States sexuality isn't considered valid grounds for filing suit under the Consitution's equal protection clause

fixed

peeb · Aug 30, 2007, 12:34 AM

Let's just remind ourselves of the relevant section of the 14th:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The accuser is making the case that he was denied equal protection that is supposed to be given to all because of his member ship of a particular group. Had he been black, for example, and been beaten with racial abuse, the case would be clear, the controversy is over whether the equal protection clause has been violated. ie, has the state granted a particular class of individuals the right to engage in an activity yet denies other individuals the same right?

peeb · Aug 30, 2007, 12:39 AM

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious

BTW:

In the United States sexuality isn't considered valid grounds for filing suit under the Consitution's equal protection clause

fixed

It has not yet been interpreted that way, but it is difficult to imagine that it will not be in the future - a plain reading of it requires that equal protection be applied to all people.

Chuckit · Aug 30, 2007, 12:44 AM

Of course gays are covered under the equal protection clause in that it covers all citizens. However, their sexuality is not specifically protected. You can't say, "I deserve protection as a homosexual" or "My sexual behavior deserves protection." Captain Obvious' explanation makes sense — this does stink of a political stunt.

peeb · Aug 30, 2007, 12:59 AM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Of course gays are covered under the equal protection clause in that it covers all citizens. However, their sexuality is not specifically protected. You can't say, "I deserve protection as a homosexual" or "My sexual behavior deserves protection." Captain Obvious' explanation makes sense — this does stink of a political stunt.

I'm not sure what you are arguing - he is claiming he was beaten because he was homosexual. Blacks are not explicitly covered either. There is a precedent for expanding the scope of groups covered, and no clear process for the courts to decide which groups are covered. It's fertile group to litigate.

Chuckit · Aug 30, 2007, 01:18 AM

Is the beating not a crime in itself? Is is sexuality relevant besides being the officers' motive? I don't think the Constitutional argument holds a lot of water, as gays are not held to have any particular special status, so whether he was beaten because he was gay or because the officers didn't like his shoes is immaterial. They should not have beaten him. Period. End of story. When he goes beyond that, he's weakening his case.

King Bob On The Cob · Aug 30, 2007, 01:33 AM

I dislike hate crime laws... Why are we segregating crimes again?

Def_ears · Aug 30, 2007, 01:48 AM

Hate crime laws only seem to apply to white males. Bunch of BS!!

OreoCookie · Aug 30, 2007, 05:52 AM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Is the beating not a crime in itself? Is is sexuality relevant besides being the officers' motive?

AFAIK it is relevant for finding the punishment, like with any crime, the motivation is essential. If it was motivated by the guy's sexual orientation (which as far as I can tell hasn't been contended), then this adds to the severity of the punishment.

stupendousman · Aug 30, 2007, 07:26 AM

Originally Posted by peeb

I'm not sure what you are arguing - he is claiming he was beaten because he was homosexual. Blacks are not explicitly covered either. There is a precedent for expanding the scope of groups covered, and no clear process for the courts to decide which groups are covered. It's fertile group to litigate.

It's not an equal protection case. If he was beaten, it doesn't matter what group he belongs to - the action is illegal. He's not eligible for special protections though because he is gay. At what point would something like that stop? "I got beat severely because I'm beautiful and the guys were jealous, so it's a constitutional issue?"

It's a stunt, and the Free Press reeled some of you guys in.

OreoCookie · Aug 30, 2007, 08:02 AM

Originally Posted by stupendousman

If he was beaten, it doesn't matter what group he belongs to - the action is illegal. He's not eligible for special protections though because he is gay.

If a person commits a hate crime, then he acts out of base motives similar to greed. If a woman kills her husband because he abused her over the years, she'll likely get another penalty than a wife who kills her husband for the money -- the motives have always been crucial to the kind of punishment a person receives for his/her crimes. Hence it is a legitimate legal criterion that influences the penalty/punishment.

Doofy · Aug 30, 2007, 09:02 AM

Sounds like another case of "we want to be equal, except when it's advantageous to us to be different".

Graviton · Aug 30, 2007, 09:09 AM

Most cops are gay. In fact, anybody who wears a uniform to work is probably gay.

This is just a hunch, I don't any have statistics, but The Village People seem to present some damning evidence in support of this theory.

peeb · Aug 30, 2007, 11:18 AM

Originally Posted by stupendousman

It's not an equal protection case. If he was beaten, it doesn't matter what group he belongs to - the action is illegal. He's not eligible for special protections though because he is gay. At what point would something like that stop? "I got beat severely because I'm beautiful and the guys were jealous, so it's a constitutional issue?"

It's a stunt, and the Free Press reeled some of you guys in.

The point is not really about this case. The constitutional argument is that the state is systematically failing to provide equal protection to a groups of people. The fact that the constitution has not historically been interpreted this way is not relevant here. This will not affect the punishment of the officers, the accuser is making the case that the state must intervene to provide equal protection, in addition to punishing the officers.

OldManMac · Aug 30, 2007, 03:01 PM

Originally Posted by stupendousman

It's not an equal protection case. If he was beaten, it doesn't matter what group he belongs to - the action is illegal. He's not eligible for special protections though because he is gay. At what point would something like that stop? "I got beat severely because I'm beautiful and the guys were jealous, so it's a constitutional issue?"

It's a stunt, and the Free Press reeled some of you guys in.

So, the way I read what you're saying is; we no longer need to worry about the cause of a particular crime, as there are no preventive measures we can take anyway. In that case, it just sucks to be gay, because they wouldn't have been beaten if they were straight. Love that logic.

Chuckit · Aug 30, 2007, 04:53 PM

Originally Posted by OldManMac

So, the way I read what you're saying is; we no longer need to worry about the cause of a particular crime, as there are no preventive measures we can take anyway.

No, the point is that he has a legitimate grievance, but the grievance is not that he has a Constitutional right to be gay and it was violated. If you want to amend the Constitution to address hate crimes, feel free to try, but you can't just make **** up and pretend it's in there.

peeb · Aug 30, 2007, 07:29 PM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

No, the point is that he has a legitimate grievance, but the grievance is not that he has a Constitutional right to be gay and it was violated. If you want to amend the Constitution to address hate crimes, feel free to try, but you can't just make **** up and pretend it's in there.

His grievance is that the state failed to give him equal protection. He's not asking for a right to be gay, he's asking for a right not to be beaten by state employees for being gay. There's no need to amend the constitution, that's already in there. Whether or not the courts will interpret the constitution to mean that the state must give him equal protection is a question for the courts - he's asking them to rule.

stupendousman · Aug 31, 2007, 11:43 PM

Originally Posted by peeb

His grievance is that the state failed to give him equal protection. He's not asking for a right to be gay, he's asking for a right not to be beaten by state employees for being gay.

They aren't arguing that he can be legally beat because he's gay. That's the point. He has no real argument.