PPC Homepage

Ken Buck talks illegal immigration, hate crime laws, government spending

by | 10:48 am, February 16, 2010 | 6 Comments

Ken Buck, Weld County's district attorney and a candidate for the U.S. Senate, said in an interview with blogger Rossputin that he believes our borders should be secured against illegal immigrants and that it should be easier for legal, temporary workers to come into the country. He disagrees with former U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo who wants to shut down all immigration. Buck also explains why he used hate crime laws to convict the murderer of a transgender male. I interviewed Buck on October 10, 2009. He's a good interview, and I agree with most of his views.
Category: Colorado Politics
Tags:

Comments

  1.   Marty Renn
      February 20th, 2010 @ 11:48 am

    I just don’t understand how Buck is a “conservative” when he uses liberal “hate crimes” laws to add more years onto what was by all police and prosecutorial quotes an “open and shut” case. The hate crimes charge did nothing but give Buck some talking points with the liberals in the state.

    The day after he filed the “hate crime” charge, he had a column in the Post. It was the first time he ever used that charge. And 2 days later he announced his campaign.

    I don’t get how he’s a conservative. I don’t understand how I can trust him to actually DO what he SAYS he believes. No real conservative in Congress voted for that law, why would we want to put someone there who supports it?

    Can someone explain it to me? I’m a minority but I don’t think its fair. If someone murders someone else, they deserve to be thrown in jail. PERIOD.

    Murder of a CHILD is awful and the murderer deserves to be put in jail for the full amount of time. If someone of MY minority (and no, I’m not telling!) is murdered by someone who hates us, who is motivated by his hatred to commit the act, then they deserve to be put in jail for the full amount of time.

    The crime against my people is in NO WAY more heinous than that against a CHILD.

    EQUAL TREATMENT under the law applies to those seeking justice as much as those having it applied to them.

  2.   Keith
      February 21st, 2010 @ 11:57 am

    Marty,
    Prosecutors will use every available statute to their advantage. The hate crime law in Colorado allows for sentence enhancement. To ignore a sentence enhancement for political reasons would violate his oath as a prosecutor. Ultimately when a law is passed the DA is required to represent the People. In the murder case you sited the convicted killer was sentenced to life without parole plus the additional 60 plus years. There are numerous legal advantages to obtaining that sentence. Ken Buck performed his duties as he is sworn to do.

  3.   Marty Renn
      February 21st, 2010 @ 10:03 pm

    How come he never bothered to use it before? I’m SURE there were several instances when he COULD have but chose not to.

    And no, you’re factually WRONG about “ignoring a sentence enhancement”. (BTW, that’s a cute little piece of BS.) Its a completely separate CHARGE. An additional accusation by the prosecution of violation of the law.

    Anytime a prosecutor chooses to file a case, they choose which statute to accuse the defendent.

    Buck CHOSE to levy the additional, unnecessary and frankly pandering charge of “hate crime”. It was a choice.

    And the fact is that he wrote an article for the Post the next day and then used both the charge and the free coverage of the article to start his campaign.

    Isn’t that kinda disgusting?

    And you didn’t bother to defend the choice as conservative, did you? I don’t think I’ve ever heard of someone defending a choice like that as conservative.

  4.   Marty Renn
      February 21st, 2010 @ 10:07 pm

    How come he never bothered to use it before? I’m SURE there were several instances when he COULD have but chose not to.

    And no, you’re factually WRONG about “ignoring a sentence enhancement”. (BTW, that’s a cute little piece of BS.) Its a completely separate CHARGE. An additional accusation by the prosecution of violation of the law.

    Anytime a prosecutor chooses to file a case, they choose which statutes to accuse the defendent. Like when they choose to file a speeding ticket as 20 miles over or 20 miles over AND reckless endangerment. Its a choice they make on a case-by-case basis and part of their authority.

    Buck CHOSE to levy the additional, unnecessary and frankly pandering charge of “hate crime”. It was a choice.

    And the fact is that he wrote an article for the Post the next day and then used both the charge and the free coverage of the article to start his campaign.

    Isn’t that kinda disgusting?

    And you didn’t bother to defend the choice as conservative, did you? I don’t think I’ve ever heard of someone defending a choice like that as conservative.

  5.   Marty Renn
      February 21st, 2010 @ 10:09 pm

    How come he never bothered to use it before? I’m SURE there were several instances when he COULD have but chose not to.

    And no, you’re factually WRONG about “ignoring a sentence enhancement”. BTW, that’s a cute little piece of “spin”. Its a completely separate CHARGE. An additional accusation by the prosecution of violation of the law.

    Anytime a prosecutor chooses to file a case, they choose which statutes to accuse the defendent. Like when they choose to file a speeding ticket as 20 miles over or 20 miles over AND reckless endangerment. Its a choice they make on a case-by-case basis and part of their authority.

    Buck CHOSE to levy the additional, unnecessary and frankly pandering charge of “hate crime”. It was a choice.

    And the fact is that he wrote an article for the Post the next day and then used both the charge and the free coverage of the article to start his campaign.

    Isn’t that kinda disgusting?

    And you didn’t bother to defend the choice as conservative, did you? I don’t think I’ve ever heard of someone defending a choice like that as conservative.

  6.   marky mark
      February 21st, 2010 @ 11:52 pm

    Marry the use if hate crime laws is not synonymous with liberal. It a crime has TRULY been committed out of hate on the basis of race or gender than that should be a part of the prosecution. I doubt you know all the facts of the case. I do not. But I know Ken Buck does.

    You seem to get really heated by Ken. Could you possibly be a scared Norton staffer?? I think yes. Norton is big government. Period. And being endorsed by McCain was just another nail in her coffin. Start looking for a new job.

Praise for PPC From Our Lefty "Fan"

  • "Zany-ass bombast-entertainment...Hackneyed weirdo communist pseudo-nostalgia" --Alan Franklin, ProgressNow

Featured Posts




  • When a young girl gets close to the truth about a long-forgotten mystery, a harmless adventure becomes a threat to the future of the independent commercial settlements on Mars.

  • Advertise Here!

    info-at-peoplespresscollective-dot-org

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Meta




  • Buy a Tea Party Poster!