Black Mob Attacks White Family

The distinction that you are trying to draw is the distinction between motive, which is not typically an element of the proving a criminal act

Is that really true? If you kill someone for money isn't the penalty greater than if you kill them out of anger?

The answer is, it depends, of course ;)

If you killed them out of anger and there was no malice aforethought, therefore rendering it 2nd Degree murder (in many states), then that would be a lesser crime than premeditated murder (murder for hire which I think is what you are talking about). But, that's not really motive that makes the distinction. It is a recognition in the law that people do, in fact, get angry or have fights and the consequences are greater then the participants intend or suspect. In some cases they are not reckless but are intentional, but not premeditated.

If I'm armed and get in a fight and at some point pull out my pistol and shoot the guy, that would be second degree. If I get in a fight and then go back to my house and get the a gun return and kill the other party, that's premeditated murder. The penalty is higher for obvious reasons.

lol.. of course it depends. ;)

what if you were seething... hated this person so much that the very thought of them drove you to a red-hot rage? you go out and happen to find the person and without the slightest provocation, or minimal provocation (like the person smiling at you), you lash out and kill them. would that be pre-meditated? after all, you didn't go out planning to kill them... or would it be temporary insanity? no... b/c you knew you were killing the guy and hated him... so? what is it? this is probably the closest situation to a hate crime... the rage against a group become so great that either with little planning or momentary response, you attack the person or group of people.

Now... society can't send a message that say, Tech Esq can't hate rude people so much that the sight of one sends him into a blind tizzy... but society CAN send a message that society won't tolerate people being killed for what they are born.

as to your last point, if you were lawfully armed and were lawfully defending yourself with reasonable force, you wouldn't be guilty of anything, not even second degree. :eusa_shhh:

only if the use of force were excessive would that come into play, I think.
 
Or such attacks -- from any direction -- and the resulting tangles of politics and prosecution could be dealt with by simply allowing different racial groups to go their own ways.

Right, right... it's crazy, it'll never work, blah blah blah. But would it really? Isn't it really this "togetherteid," as Fred Reed calls it, more absurd and difficult-to-administer? Shouldn't some form of racial separation be on the table? Who benefits from the forced togetherness, anyway? After centuries of this thing NOT FUCKNG WORKING, what's it going to take for us all to consider a new path? They say insanity is trying the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. That's pretty much our approach to race relations in America. Isn't it time to at least THINK about new approaches, ones that would work to the betterment of ALL groups?

Actually, things are working very nicely. But I can see someone who doesn't WANT things to work out well. :eusa_whistle:
 
I understand. But my problem is with the practical not the normative. I might agree that people that commit violent crime against other people because they are trying to foment division between factions of this country should be punished to a greater extent, but look at the practical side. Here you have prosecutor in Akron, OH with a large African-American community. Do you really think he has the stones to place the Hate Crime card on a group of Black teens?

If he does that and he's a Democrat, he can kiss his career in the prosecutor's office goodbye and any political aspirations he might have as well. The blacks in the state party with ensure he gets no further support.
While you make some interesting points, this says more about your assumptions concerning blacks than anything else.

I'd be interested in what you think it says. It sounds kinda bad.
 
The distinction that you are trying to draw is the distinction between motive, which is not typically an element of the proving a criminal act and mens rea or guilty thought which is an element of crimes involving an element of intent. That is the defendant intended to do the act that he did.

Not to get too technical, but this covers instances with A intends to shoot B, but instead shoots C. While he did not intend to shoot C he did intend to do the crime of shooting someone (let's call the crime malicious wounding). So, A is guilty of the crime of malicious wounding for shooting C even thought he intended to shoot B. His intent was to do the act of shooting someone, he successfully did shoot someone, therefore the element of mens rea is satisfied. (So is actus reus for that matter, since the person was shot).

Notice however that motivation is not an element of this crime. The law cares not why A was shooting B. The mere fact of A shooting at a person intentionally is enough.

So you're basically making the distinction between motive and intent? Meaning that in Robert's example they were looking at the intent, whereas in a hate crime they look at motivation?

Right. If you are answering the "why" question, that's motive.

Then we are in agreement. :razz:
 
Don't hate crimes, in a way, tell people who are victims of other crimes that what they suffered is a lesser evil? If you have had a loved one murdered, but not because of race or sexual preference or whatever else falls under the hate crime label, it wasn't as bad as someone who did?

Hate crime laws, IMO, are just another political ploy to appease the voters. They have nothing to do with justice, I doubt they have any practical effect on preventing the crimes they target, they simply let some legislators say, "Look at me! I care about preventing racism!"
 
I understand. But my problem is with the practical not the normative. I might agree that people that commit violent crime against other people because they are trying to foment division between factions of this country should be punished to a greater extent, but look at the practical side. Here you have prosecutor in Akron, OH with a large African-American community. Do you really think he has the stones to place the Hate Crime card on a group of Black teens?

If he does that and he's a Democrat, he can kiss his career in the prosecutor's office goodbye and any political aspirations he might have as well. The blacks in the state party with ensure he gets no further support.
While you make some interesting points, this says more about your assumptions concerning blacks than anything else.

I'd be interested in what you think it says. It sounds kinda bad.
It sounds like you are saying that you think that the blacks in that district care more about keeping blacks, guilty or not, out of jail more than they care about justice and a fair application of that law. Have any black voters in that district expressed the view that the law should only apply to whites? And if they did, would they be representative of all black voters in that district?
 
A crime is a crime, I see no reason for "hate crimes." While we may look at the motivation for a crime to help us understand why it occurred I think it sets a dangerous precedent to punish the motivation along with the actual crime.

Incidentally, Akron is only about 10 - 15 minutes north of where I live.

Mostly I agree. There need to be laws which apply to people who gather for the sole purpose of persecuting those of other races or religions...but as far as this goes, a group of kids attacking someone, it shouldn't matter if it's a hate crime or not. They should get the same treatment if they attacked a black family as a white.
 
Mostly I agree. There need to be laws which apply to people who gather for the sole purpose of persecuting those of other races or religions

I disagree completely.

Gathering together in groups should always be legal so long as it is PEACEABLE, regardless of purpose.

After all, you're just looking to outlaw the KKK, Nazi Party, whatever. What will you do when those same laws are applied to your church or mosque or synagogue? None of those religions accept homosexuality as morally appropriate, and with liberals in control, the bible itself would be used as proof of "hate speech."
 
So, if the situation were reversed and 50 whites attacked a black family yelling, "This is a White World. This Our World," exactly how many seconds would it take the police to decide it was a hate crime?

This is EXACTLY why there shouldn't be hate crime laws, they will never be enforced equally. Jillian, if you're out there, this is precisely what I was talking about in the hate crime thread.

Hi, TE... I see what you're saying. But honestly? I think this is EXACTLY why there should be hate crime laws.

And I think these teens should already be charged under those laws. And if they're found guilty, I'd hope their hatred gets them as much time as I'd want to see a group of white attackers get if it were reversed.

I understand. But my problem is with the practical not the normative. I might agree that people that commit violent crime against other people because they are trying to foment division between factions of this country should be punished to a greater extent, but look at the practical side. Here you have prosecutor in Akron, OH with a large African-American community. Do you really think he has the stones to place the Hate Crime card on a group of Black teens?

If he does that and he's a Democrat, he can kiss his career in the prosecutor's office goodbye and any political aspirations he might have as well. The blacks in the state party with ensure he gets no further support.

If he's a republican, well that's not very likely is it....:lol:

So, if it isn't tried as a hate crime, what message does that send to the victims and others who are similarly situated? Doesn't it send the same message to them as it has to blacks for years? This is an unfair system and when something like this happens, you can be sure that you'll get shit on.

The justice system relies on people believing there is equal justice under the law. It is bad enough that one group feels they can't depend on the system, to exacerbate that by creating a larger group seems unwise.

Hate crime laws are a tool, but if the tool can't be used fairly, we shouldn't have it at all.

this is a great reason why the prosecutor's office should be be an elected one
 
Is that really true? If you kill someone for money isn't the penalty greater than if you kill them out of anger?

The answer is, it depends, of course ;)

If you killed them out of anger and there was no malice aforethought, therefore rendering it 2nd Degree murder (in many states), then that would be a lesser crime than premeditated murder (murder for hire which I think is what you are talking about). But, that's not really motive that makes the distinction. It is a recognition in the law that people do, in fact, get angry or have fights and the consequences are greater then the participants intend or suspect. In some cases they are not reckless but are intentional, but not premeditated.

If I'm armed and get in a fight and at some point pull out my pistol and shoot the guy, that would be second degree. If I get in a fight and then go back to my house and get the a gun return and kill the other party, that's premeditated murder. The penalty is higher for obvious reasons.

lol.. of course it depends. ;)

what if you were seething... hated this person so much that the very thought of them drove you to a red-hot rage? you go out and happen to find the person and without the slightest provocation, or minimal provocation (like the person smiling at you), you lash out and kill them. would that be pre-meditated? after all, you didn't go out planning to kill them... or would it be temporary insanity? no... b/c you knew you were killing the guy and hated him... so? what is it? this is probably the closest situation to a hate crime... the rage against a group become so great that either with little planning or momentary response, you attack the person or group of people.

Now... society can't send a message that say, Tech Esq can't hate rude people so much that the sight of one sends him into a blind tizzy... but society CAN send a message that society won't tolerate people being killed for what they are born.

as to your last point, if you were lawfully armed and were lawfully defending yourself with reasonable force, you wouldn't be guilty of anything, not even second degree. :eusa_shhh:

only if the use of force were excessive would that come into play, I think.

Too cool! Jillian just got me off on with self defense :clap2:

We'll assume, en arguendo, that I punched the guy first. Just to make sure I was going down for something.

Back to the seething rage....Quite right, my lawyer would argue temporary insanity. But, like most lawyers who make that argument, he will probably fail. So, in the hypothetical, I did not go out looking for the person I hate, I just happen upon them. One strike against pre-meditation. But, all good prosecutors can find some pre-meditation to hang their hat on, so let's see what we can find. So, with no real provocation, I killed them. I would have to know more. How did I kill them? Did I shoot them? Where was the gun? Did I stab them? Set them on fire? Strangle them? So many questions, so many opportunities for pre-meditation.

In any case, society sends a VERY strong message that any unjustified killing regardless of the reason will cost you very dearly. If your state doesn't send that message, I would urge your state to pass truth in sentencing legislation. In Virginia, if you are sentenced to 20 years in jail, you will do no less than 18.5 years in jail. And, that's if you are a model prisoner.
 
Too cool! Jillian just got me off on with self defense :clap2:

that's why they pay me the big bucks. :lol:

We'll assume, en arguendo, that I punched the guy first. Just to make sure I was going down for something.

OK... Assault.. assuming you don't cause serious injury with the punch.

Back to the seething rage....Quite right, my lawyer would argue temporary insanity. But, like most lawyers who make that argument, he will probably fail.

Yep... rarely succeeds because you admit the act in claiming the defense. Jury's don't like to let people go when they've admittted they did something illegal.

So, in the hypothetical, I did not go out looking for the person I hate, I just happen upon them. One strike against pre-meditation. But, all good prosecutors can find some pre-meditation to hang their hat on, so let's see what we can find. So, with no real provocation, I killed them. I would have to know more. How did I kill them? Did I shoot them? Where was the gun? Did I stab them? Set them on fire? Strangle them? So many questions, so many opportunities for pre-meditation.

you kicked the bejesus out of him like they did to Matthew Sheppard.... without the drama.

In any case, society sends a VERY strong message that any unjustified killing regardless of the reason will cost you very dearly. If your state doesn't send that message, I would urge your state to pass truth in sentencing legislation. In Virginia, if you are sentenced to 20 years in jail, you will do no less than 18.5 years in jail. And, that's if you are a model prisoner.

interesting. here, i think they get about 1/3 off for "good time", too.

getting off topic from hate crimes, i do think we need to be more realistic about who deserves to be in jail and first get rid of the ridiculous drug laws that keep people in jail longer for selling weed than a person who sexually abused a child. jails should be for violent crimes.

I'm still going to have to agree to disagree with you. I think "hate crimes" legislation is a tool that can and should be used when necessary.

This was fun, though.
 
While you make some interesting points, this says more about your assumptions concerning blacks than anything else.

I'd be interested in what you think it says. It sounds kinda bad.
It sounds like you are saying that you think that the blacks in that district care more about keeping blacks, guilty or not, out of jail more than they care about justice and a fair application of that law. Have any black voters in that district expressed the view that the law should only apply to whites? And if they did, would they be representative of all black voters in that district?

Oh, I see. I'll answer seriatum: Some do. I'll go on a limb and say at least one has expressed that view. That would qualify as "any." No, that wouldn't be representative of "all."

But, what I was really saying was that black pressure groups in the area that are politically motivated and politically activated with do the work of ending this prosecutor's career. They are single issue focused. They are there to defend black people. Charging black people with hate crimes, to them, is certainly no kind of precedent to set. If they didn't fight it, a certain contingent of the population would question what their even there for if they aren't going to fight this.

Remember, there is a popular school of thought that says minorities are incapable of racism because they do not hold any power. (Who are you gonna believe them or your lying eyes?) This would merely be a corollary to that school of thought.
 
I'd be interested in what you think it says. It sounds kinda bad.
It sounds like you are saying that you think that the blacks in that district care more about keeping blacks, guilty or not, out of jail more than they care about justice and a fair application of that law. Have any black voters in that district expressed the view that the law should only apply to whites? And if they did, would they be representative of all black voters in that district?

Oh, I see. I'll answer seriatum: Some do. I'll go on a limb and say at least one has expressed that view. That would qualify as "any." No, that wouldn't be representative of "all."

But, what I was really saying was that black pressure groups in the area that are politically motivated and politically activated with do the work of ending this prosecutor's career. They are single issue focused. They are there to defend black people. Charging black people with hate crimes, to them, is certainly no kind of precedent to set. If they didn't fight it, a certain contingent of the population would question what their even there for if they aren't going to fight this.

Remember, there is a popular school of thought that says minorities are incapable of racism because they do not hold any power. (Who are you gonna believe them or your lying eyes?) This would merely be a corollary to that school of thought.

I sounds like you are more cynical about black political groups than blacks in general, which is how I initially read you.
It will be interesting to see where this thing goes, if there is sufficient evidence and if the kids are charged.
 
Too cool! Jillian just got me off on with self defense :clap2:

that's why they pay me the big bucks. :lol:

We'll assume, en arguendo, that I punched the guy first. Just to make sure I was going down for something.

OK... Assault.. assuming you don't cause serious injury with the punch.



Yep... rarely succeeds because you admit the act in claiming the defense. Jury's don't like to let people go when they've admittted they did something illegal.

So, in the hypothetical, I did not go out looking for the person I hate, I just happen upon them. One strike against pre-meditation. But, all good prosecutors can find some pre-meditation to hang their hat on, so let's see what we can find. So, with no real provocation, I killed them. I would have to know more. How did I kill them? Did I shoot them? Where was the gun? Did I stab them? Set them on fire? Strangle them? So many questions, so many opportunities for pre-meditation.

you kicked the bejesus out of him like they did to Matthew Sheppard.... without the drama.

In any case, society sends a VERY strong message that any unjustified killing regardless of the reason will cost you very dearly. If your state doesn't send that message, I would urge your state to pass truth in sentencing legislation. In Virginia, if you are sentenced to 20 years in jail, you will do no less than 18.5 years in jail. And, that's if you are a model prisoner.

interesting. here, i think they get about 1/3 off for "good time", too.

getting off topic from hate crimes, i do think we need to be more realistic about who deserves to be in jail and first get rid of the ridiculous drug laws that keep people in jail longer for selling weed than a person who sexually abused a child. jails should be for violent crimes.

I'm still going to have to agree to disagree with you. I think "hate crimes" legislation is a tool that can and should be used when necessary.

This was fun, though.

Hmmm....I kicked him. I guess unless I had to wait for a light to cross the street or go get my fake leg, pre-meditation might be out. So, I'm thinking 2nd Degree murder. WAIT!! If I had to walk any real distance to start kicking the guy, it's premeditated! Now, if I bumped into him recognized him and started kicking, then I'm back to 2nd degree.

§ 18.2-32. First and second degree murder defined; punishment.

Murder, other than capital murder, by poison, lying in wait, imprisonment, starving, or by any willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing, or in the commission of, or attempt to commit, arson, rape, forcible sodomy, inanimate or animate object sexual penetration, robbery, burglary or abduction, except as provided in § 18.2-31, is murder of the first degree, punishable as a Class 2 felony.

All murder other than capital murder and murder in the first degree is murder of the second degree and is punishable by confinement in a state correctional facility for not less than five nor more than forty years.

I would agree with getting the drug offenders out of jail. I might even be to the left of you on that issue. ;) But you have to get rid of that 1/3 good time BS. Changing sentencing here has made a significant difference in deterrence. That and Project Exile and it's follow on. You commit a crime with a firearm in Virginia at your peril. If DC would take VA's example, they'd be a lot better off and it wouldn't matter how many guns VA sold.
 
It sounds like you are saying that you think that the blacks in that district care more about keeping blacks, guilty or not, out of jail more than they care about justice and a fair application of that law. Have any black voters in that district expressed the view that the law should only apply to whites? And if they did, would they be representative of all black voters in that district?

Oh, I see. I'll answer seriatum: Some do. I'll go on a limb and say at least one has expressed that view. That would qualify as "any." No, that wouldn't be representative of "all."

But, what I was really saying was that black pressure groups in the area that are politically motivated and politically activated with do the work of ending this prosecutor's career. They are single issue focused. They are there to defend black people. Charging black people with hate crimes, to them, is certainly no kind of precedent to set. If they didn't fight it, a certain contingent of the population would question what their even there for if they aren't going to fight this.

Remember, there is a popular school of thought that says minorities are incapable of racism because they do not hold any power. (Who are you gonna believe them or your lying eyes?) This would merely be a corollary to that school of thought.

I sounds like you are more cynical about black political groups than blacks in general, which is how I initially read you.
It will be interesting to see where this thing goes, if there is sufficient evidence and if the kids are charged.

Meh, I'm not cynical, I've worked with the NAACP on certain of the cases I've handled. I know how they think and operate. My Crim Law professor was the Chief Counsel of the Rainbow Push Coalition. Jesse Jackson came and spoke to our class. (I AM Some-body! For Jesse told me....). It's possible I know whereof I speak.
 
Hi, TE... I see what you're saying. But honestly? I think this is EXACTLY why there should be hate crime laws.

And I think these teens should already be charged under those laws. And if they're found guilty, I'd hope their hatred gets them as much time as I'd want to see a group of white attackers get if it were reversed.

No.

Making something officially a "hate crime" just adds another layer* that is unnecessary. Murder and vandalism aren't any worse just because of the motivaion behind them. I've read no stats on this, but I'm guessing that it's not proven to be a deterrent, either. I can't see haters being any less inclined to commit a particular crime against others they hate just because it will be classified as something more.


*can't think of a better way of putting that.
 
Don't hate crimes, in a way, tell people who are victims of other crimes that what they suffered is a lesser evil? If you have had a loved one murdered, but not because of race or sexual preference or whatever else falls under the hate crime label, it wasn't as bad as someone who did?

Hate crime laws, IMO, are just another political ploy to appease the voters. They have nothing to do with justice, I doubt they have any practical effect on preventing the crimes they target, they simply let some legislators say, "Look at me! I care about preventing racism!"

Quoting this because I think Montrovant has the clearest understanding of what "hate crime" laws do. I can't word it any better myself, thanks Mont.
 
Making something officially a "hate crime" just adds another layer* that is unnecessary. Murder and vandalism aren't any worse just because of the motivaion behind them. I've read no stats on this, but I'm guessing that it's not proven to be a deterrent, either. I can't see haters being any less inclined to commit a particular crime against others they hate just because it will be classified as something more.


*can't think of a better way of putting that.

i agree with ya on this..."hate crimes" are just another PC piece of bullshit....
 
Ohio.com - Akron police investigate teen mob attack on family
Akron police investigate teen mob attack on family
By Phil Trexler
Beacon Journal staff writer

POSTED: 07:44 p.m. EDT, Jul 07, 2009

Akron police say they aren't ready to call it a hate crime or a gang initiation.

But to Marty Marshall, his wife and two kids, it seems pretty clear.

It came after a family night of celebrating America and freedom with a fireworks show at Firestone Stadium. Marshall, his family and two friends were gathered outside a friend's home in South Akron.

Out of nowhere, the six were attacked by dozens of teenage boys, who shouted ''This is our world'' and ''This is a black world'' as they confronted Marshall and his family.

More...
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top