Consulting the missing thread?

[Rich]

I guess my point is: Why don't standard assault laws apply if officials get threatened? Why do we need special laws when there are already laws on the books?

This opinion extends to laws that deal with "hate crimes" as well. Aren't there already laws on the books that deal with most of the situations that hate crimes cover? Why do there need to be SPECIAL laws?

I can be convinced otherwise, I just haven't heard the compelling argument yet. I think the only reason these laws are written is that society isn't enforcing the ones we already got.

Rich

[canuckrefguy]

Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser
Not that it excuses me for getting personal or anything, but I certainly didn't see this same level of criticism against those who were bashing MTD in the thread I deleted. Where was all the criticism towards those people?

The others did not continue needling, baiting, or taunting, after the original thread was deleted. You did. That's all I was criticizing. It has nothing to do with you being a moderator, either.

As for laws regarding assault against officials, sometimes if there is a need, special sections, variations, or clarifications of existing laws are useful.

And I agree, the Pats look pretty good right now...

[Rich]

Actually, I wasn't referring to you. Your comment was appropriate and timely and this is the last time I'm going to mention anything to do with that thread.

Go Eagles.

Rich

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser
I guess my point is: Why don't standard assault laws apply if officials get threatened? Why do we need special laws when there are already laws on the books?

This opinion extends to laws that deal with "hate crimes" as well. Aren't there already laws on the books that deal with most of the situations that hate crimes cover? Why do there need to be SPECIAL laws?

I can be convinced otherwise, I just haven't heard the compelling argument yet. I think the only reason these laws are written is that society isn't enforcing the ones we already got.

Rich

Those are not "special laws." They are laws that address very specific concerns in our society. Like Megan's Law, which creates registration for sex offenders and "helps" protect children from certain abuse. It is no different than having laws for is someone displays a weapon but does not use it or someone being able to go to jail for concelling a weapon in a car. The laws are there to address special concerns. And no, there were not laws that addressed hate crimes, some of the states would not be able to prosecute under certain provisions. And it also allows the Federal Government to take action as well. Now that might not be the best thing in many folks eyes, but I think for the most part what you call "special laws" as necessary. Attacking someone in a bar is much different than attacking an official on or off the court. Because if you make it an assult case, they incident might not be even prosecuted, because you treat it like the many other incidents. If you make a law adding punishment for committing specific acts, then it might make someone think twice about even attempting such an act. Because you raised the hate crime issue, I think that has brought teeth behind exsisting laws where before using racial slurs and killing someone just because they are a certain color than you, it adds to the liability and legal responsibilty of the person that committs those acts. Because before the laws, many of these cases were just thrown out, because judges and jurors would not convict folks, because many were considered "provoked" by the social structure to act in such a manner. No different as to why they did things differently with Domestic Violence laws, because police and prosecutors would turn the other cheek and not do anything. At least these laws raise awareness and require stiffer fines and jail time if committed. Before they could push these issues under the rug. And the laws that protect officials are no different in my mind.

Peace

[Rich]

I guess those are the two things I saw that could be considered positive:

(1) It increases public awareness that it just isn't acceptable to threaten a sports official.

(2) It puts teeth into existing laws that, for whatever reason, weren't being enforced.

I've been threatened at a car in the past by irate....idiots is the only word that comes to mind now. Technically assault, but I've been conditioned that this kind of abuse is something I signed up for when I chose to be an official -- I hopped in the car and got out of town. Looking at that and examining it objectively -- why should a stranger be able to come up to another human being at a car and shout and scream and threaten that other person just because they were officiating a sports event?

Maybe you're right -- maybe it will take legislation and the subsequent enforcement of that legislation in order to get people to realize that they need to act better. But will these new laws be enforced in the same haphazard and inconsistent fashion as the existing assault laws? Will officials still be expected to take mor ethan the average citizen because of the role they play?

Will be interesting to see. All I know is that this new law affects me, since I do work games in Illinois from time to time.

Rich