Can a hate crime be committed against a group that doesn't believe in hate crimes?

Ravi

Diamond Member
Feb 27, 2008
90,899
14,005
2,205
Hating Hatters
Sounds to me, from what little evidence we have, that the perp arrested for shooting a Family Research Council guard should be charged with a hate crime.

But the Family Research Council is on record opposing hate crimes because they don't believe they exist.

:eusa_eh:
 
huh, FRC weaseled out by declaring it an act of domestic terrorism.

I have never understood the difference between hate crime and domestic terrorism.
 
huh, FRC weaseled out by declaring it an act of domestic terrorism.

I have never understood the difference between hate crime and domestic terrorism.

In the end, some guy shot some other guys, and should go to jail for a long time.

To me terrorism has to have some goal of destabilizing society as a whole through violent action. It also has to be an organized effort, and on a rather grand scale.

I understand why people feel the need to punish people further for having unpopular viewpoints while committing a crime, but the action and the overall mental state of the person are what the law cares about.
 
Sounds to me, from what little evidence we have, that the perp arrested for shooting a Family Research Council guard should be charged with a hate crime.

But the Family Research Council is on record opposing hate crimes because they don't believe they exist.

:eusa_eh:

Personally, I find the word 'believe' when discussing something like 'hate crimes' to be somewhat ridiculous. Believe is not the word... the word is 'agree'. Either you agree that such a thing is legitimate, or you disagree. Again, personally, I disagree. Labeling some crimes as 'hate' marks the victims out as somehow 'special' and no one in this country is special. We're all Americans.... no one individual, or group, is 'special'.
 
huh, FRC weaseled out by declaring it an act of domestic terrorism.

I have never understood the difference between hate crime and domestic terrorism.

In the end, some guy shot some other guys, and should go to jail for a long time.

To me terrorism has to have some goal of destabilizing society as a whole through violent action. It also has to be an organized effort, and on a rather grand scale.

I understand why people feel the need to punish people further for having unpopular viewpoints while committing a crime, but the action and the overall mental state of the person are what the law cares about.

There certainly doesn't appear to be any organization--it looks like this guy acted alone. Thanks for clearing that difference up for me. I don't know if it would meet the legal definition of domestic terrorism but it certainly makes sense.
 
Sounds to me, from what little evidence we have, that the perp arrested for shooting a Family Research Council guard should be charged with a hate crime.

But the Family Research Council is on record opposing hate crimes because they don't believe they exist.

:eusa_eh:

I oppose hate crimes too. Good thing this is being investigated as an act of terrorism.
 
Funny how the left was so concerned about the Constitutional rights of Communists who were out to overthrow the government and anarchists like Bill Ayers but they ignore the Constitution when the victims threaten the abortion industry. The 1st Amendment offers "equal protection under the law". That includes "the family research council". Case closed.
 
huh, FRC weaseled out by declaring it an act of domestic terrorism.

I have never understood the difference between hate crime and domestic terrorism.

In the end, some guy shot some other guys, and should go to jail for a long time.

To me terrorism has to have some goal of destabilizing society as a whole through violent action. It also has to be an organized effort, and on a rather grand scale.

I understand why people feel the need to punish people further for having unpopular viewpoints while committing a crime, but the action and the overall mental state of the person are what the law cares about.

There certainly doesn't appear to be any organization--it looks like this guy acted alone. Thanks for clearing that difference up for me. I don't know if it would meet the legal definition of domestic terrorism but it certainly makes sense.

I dont know if there is really a legal term "terrorism." Terorroism consists of other defined crimes used in a certain way.
 
In the end, some guy shot some other guys, and should go to jail for a long time.

To me terrorism has to have some goal of destabilizing society as a whole through violent action. It also has to be an organized effort, and on a rather grand scale.

I understand why people feel the need to punish people further for having unpopular viewpoints while committing a crime, but the action and the overall mental state of the person are what the law cares about.

There certainly doesn't appear to be any organization--it looks like this guy acted alone. Thanks for clearing that difference up for me. I don't know if it would meet the legal definition of domestic terrorism but it certainly makes sense.

I dont know if there is really a legal term "terrorism." Terorroism consists of other defined crimes used in a certain way.
I think there is one in the US Code....or some such. But of course, it kind of depends on the eye of the beholder.
 
Sounds to me, from what little evidence we have, that the perp arrested for shooting a Family Research Council guard should be charged with a hate crime.

But the Family Research Council is on record opposing hate crimes because they don't believe they exist.

:eusa_eh:

Personally, I find the word 'believe' when discussing something like 'hate crimes' to be somewhat ridiculous. Believe is not the word... the word is 'agree'. Either you agree that such a thing is legitimate, or you disagree. Again, personally, I disagree. Labeling some crimes as 'hate' marks the victims out as somehow 'special' and no one in this country is special. We're all Americans.... no one individual, or group, is 'special'.

you're giving pretentious a bad name, sandi.


:eusa_hand:
 
Sounds to me, from what little evidence we have, that the perp arrested for shooting a Family Research Council guard should be charged with a hate crime.

But the Family Research Council is on record opposing hate crimes because they don't believe they exist.

:eusa_eh:

Personally, I find the word 'believe' when discussing something like 'hate crimes' to be somewhat ridiculous. Believe is not the word... the word is 'agree'. Either you agree that such a thing is legitimate, or you disagree. Again, personally, I disagree. Labeling some crimes as 'hate' marks the victims out as somehow 'special' and no one in this country is special. We're all Americans.... no one individual, or group, is 'special'.

you're giving pretentious a bad name, sandi.


:eusa_hand:





Oh but she felt so obliged to say something negative toward Ravi, never mind that her point is nothing but hollow word semantics...


personally, I disagree. {BECAUSE I BELIEVE} Labeling some crimes as 'hate' marks the victims out as somehow 'special'
 
Sounds to me, from what little evidence we have, that the perp arrested for shooting a Family Research Council guard should be charged with a hate crime.

But the Family Research Council is on record opposing hate crimes because they don't believe they exist.

:eusa_eh:

Good point I had not thought of that.
 
What's the point? The left created the judicial concept of "hate crimes" based on the alleged biased thoughts in the mind of the perpetrator. Now the left claims that the thoughts in the minds of the victims cancels out the motive of the shooter. The world is upside down and back-assward in the liberal mind
 
What's the point? The left created the judicial concept of "hate crimes" based on the alleged biased thoughts in the mind of the perpetrator. Now the left claims that the thoughts in the minds of the victims cancels out the motive of the shooter. The world is upside down and back-assward in the liberal mind
Well, no. There must be concrete evidence to charge a hate crime. Thoughts aren't concrete evidence.

But you avoided the issue.
 
What's the point? The left created the judicial concept of "hate crimes" based on the alleged biased thoughts in the mind of the perpetrator. Now the left claims that the thoughts in the minds of the victims cancels out the motive of the shooter. The world is upside down and back-assward in the liberal mind
Well, no. There must be concrete evidence to charge a hate crime. Thoughts aren't concrete evidence.

But you avoided the issue.

No, there has to be concrete evidence to charge a crime. The hate part is subject to the whims of left wing ideology based on a convoluted method for judging the mental state of the perpetrator. The victim's mental state is not an issue unless an ACLU law suit created one while we weren't looking.
 
They wanted hate crime legislation, that is what they get. They don't get to back out now :eusa_hand:
 
What's the point? The left created the judicial concept of "hate crimes" based on the alleged biased thoughts in the mind of the perpetrator. Now the left claims that the thoughts in the minds of the victims cancels out the motive of the shooter. The world is upside down and back-assward in the liberal mind
Well, no. There must be concrete evidence to charge a hate crime. Thoughts aren't concrete evidence.

But you avoided the issue.

No, there has to be concrete evidence to charge a crime. The hate part is subject to the whims of left wing ideology based on a convoluted method for judging the mental state of the perpetrator. The victim's mental state is not an issue unless an ACLU law suit created one while we weren't looking.
Feel free to show me a case where someone was convicted of a hate crime with no compelling evidence to support the charge.
 
What's the point? The left created the judicial concept of "hate
crimes" based on the alleged biased thoughts in the mind of the perpetrator. Now the left claims that the thoughts in the minds of the victims cancels out the motive of the shooter. The world is upside down and back-assward in the liberal mind

Who is this mystical "left" you keep referring to?

It's such a nonsensical childish term I'm always surprised when anyone older than about 12 uses it. Do you really think the Dalai Lama, Stalin, Clinton and Mandela all represent a single poltical view point?

How about Thatcher, Hitler, Palin and Ayn Rand?

Rather than just blame half of the planet for anythin you dislike, why not name names?
 
Motive is always an issue that the law takes into account when it comes to crime.

Pretending that it doesn't matter what motivated the crime is rather silly position to take given that motive can completely alter the verdict and the sentence.

The state of mind of the perp is ALWAYS important according to the law of the land.
 

Forum List

Back
Top