667
this post was submitted on 05 Nov 2024
667 points (100.0% liked)
politics
19148 readers
1938 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Why does it makes a difference if the person is over 60? Shouldn't aggravated battery be aggregated battery no matter who the victim is?
Same reason it makes a difference whether the victim is a child, an elderly person is more likely to suffer long-term and more adverse effects from an assault.
go on ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_police_shoving_incident
its significant that the assaulter was 24 and the victim is over 60. Now granted he was lucky that pole worker was not my brother or David 'The Rock' Nelson.
A pole worker is something…different. You’re thinking of a poll worker.
Same for an erection judge ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
on hindsight I should have said election judge.
Personally I'm glad to see that so many states make a distinction (hopefully with harsher consequences) for battery against older people, because of all the stories I've seen this week about magats punching old people. I haven't seen any stories about them punching the ones who would be able to put up a fight, funny how that works.
You can hit someone 30 in the chest and it turns out they have a health condition and they die of heart failure, you can hit someone 61 that works security that will then kick your ass. In the end hitting people is wrong no matter who gets hit and should come with the same consequence no matter who gets hit.
Because the elderly are a vulnerable population like children.
You never know the health condition of people, hitting someone is hitting someone is hitting someone.
That’s reductive. Give them any definition you like but you have to accept that children and the elderly are different than people aged, say, 18-60.
As I mentioned in another comment you can hit a 30 years old in the chest not knowing they have a heart issue and they will die on the spot, you can hit a 60 years old that works security that will kick your ass. Hitting someone is wrong no matter who it is and should lead to the same consequences no matter who it is, if that means making consequences harsher if the victim is 18 to 59 then so be it.
Basically you don’t want to accept that some classes require protection under this odd “everyone is the equal” thing.
For something like that? Hell yeah everyone is equal and punishment should be the same, you hit someone you don't know the damage you'll do, you deserve all the shit no matter who you hit.
But hitting an 85 year old or a 12 year old is just the same as hitting a 35 year old, per your argument.
The consequence of doing it should be the same, yes
I suspect the main purpose of those laws was to handle the increasing problem of elder abuse.