Hate crimes against "the homeless"

How is beating the shit out of a black man because he's black worse than beating the shit out of a man with glasses because you hate glasses?

Beating the shit out of any person because of their race, creed, color etc. is actionable, this does not just pertain to Black people. There has been a history in the US of discriminating again people because of the aforementioned. If people who wore glasses were discriminated against in the US in the same manner then that action would be viewed in the same manner as previously discussed.


Beating the shit out of any person because of their race, creed, color etc

Connery it is the etc... that troubles me. Which subsets of society get to be covered or included under the "hate crime" laws? Who decides? During the commission of a felony it is not always clear as to why someone assaulted another and I despise anything getting close to thought police.

That is why jumping to a conclusion is never a good idea and these incidents must be investigated. I do not want an expansion of the law to include the homeless or any other "social" problem of this nature.
 
No one is defending crime.

I am not suggesting that someone who sets a homeless man on fire go free. Only that he receive the same punishment as the man who sets a banker on fire.

Yeah, that's what this is, if a homeowner gets attacked on his property there are a host of laws that can be used to up the penalties, trespassing, armed invasion, B+E, etc. Not so for a guy sleeping in an alley.

Those are separate crimes.

If you feel the punishments for setting someone on fire are too lenient, that's one thing. However I don't agree the solution to that is to punish people based on how they feel about the victim.

I've already went though this earlier, hate crimes are not that easy to prove and not too many people have ever been charged with them. It all has to do with premeditation and intent such as loading up the baseball bats and going hunting for homeless people VS getting in an unexpected fight with a homeless person. In either case the homeless person may end up hurt or killed but only one of these is a hate crime and may be charged as such.
 
Last edited:
No it is not, but, there still seems to be the same issues regarding "hate" crimes, the players are different but the hate is still the same.

Do you think if these laws regarding "hate" crimes were repealed there would be no crime based on "hate"?

No, I dont think eliminating hate crime laws eliminates hate.

Do you think making more hate crime laws with reduce hate?

It makes the penalty for the crime committed based on hate more severe. Hate cannot be legislated away only the unlawful exhibition of that hatred.

I just love the circular logic of the left. Crime is by definition an action, or exhibition as you put it, that is what is punished, motive should have nothing to do with the punishment, only the act itself. A crime against a person is by definition a hateful act, so I guess all crimes against people should carry enhanced sentences. Right?
 
Does the menacing guy who is holding a knife blade to the throat of a white wealthy businessman in some darkened alleyway as he robs him of his watch and wallet have love in his heart?
 
Last edited:
Does the menacing guy who is holding a knife blade to the throat of a white wealthy businessman in some darkened alleyway as he robs him off his watch and wallet have love in his heart?

Nope but the police sure look for him a lot harder than the guy that rolls a drunk homeless man for everything he has in the world.
 
Yeah, that's what this is, if a homeowner gets attacked on his property there are a host of laws that can be used to up the penalties, trespassing, armed invasion, B+E, etc. Not so for a guy sleeping in an alley.

Those are separate crimes.

If you feel the punishments for setting someone on fire are too lenient, that's one thing. However I don't agree the solution to that is to punish people based on how they feel about the victim.

I've already went though this earlier, hate crimes are not that easy to prove and not too many people have ever been charged with them. It all has to do with premeditation and intent such as loading up the baseball bats and going hunting for homeless people VS getting in an unexpected fight with a homeless person. In either case the homeless person may end up hurt or killed but only one of these is a hate crime and may be charged as such.

Damn I thought they already had enhanced sentences for premeditated crime versus spontanions crimes. Why the need for additional enhancement?
 
Does the menacing guy who is holding a knife blade to the throat of a white wealthy businessman in some darkened alleyway as he robs him off his watch and wallet have love in his heart?

Nope but the police sure look for him a lot harder than the guy that rolls a drunk homeless man for everything he has in the world.

So we are not equally protected under the law?
 
Those are separate crimes.

If you feel the punishments for setting someone on fire are too lenient, that's one thing. However I don't agree the solution to that is to punish people based on how they feel about the victim.

I've already went though this earlier, hate crimes are not that easy to prove and not too many people have ever been charged with them. It all has to do with premeditation and intent such as loading up the baseball bats and going hunting for homeless people VS getting in an unexpected fight with a homeless person. In either case the homeless person may end up hurt or killed but only one of these is a hate crime and may be charged as such.

Damn I thought they already had enhanced sentences for premeditated crime versus spontanions crimes. Why the need for additional enhancement?

Exactly!!
 
Does the menacing guy who is holding a knife blade to the throat of a white wealthy businessman in some darkened alleyway as he robs him off his watch and wallet have love in his heart?

Nope but the police sure look for him a lot harder than the guy that rolls a drunk homeless man for everything he has in the world.

So we are not equally protected under the law?

Did you think we were? Technically we are but in reality there is a major difference in how the police and prosecutors react to the same crime on or by different people.
 
Does the menacing guy who is holding a knife blade to the throat of a white wealthy businessman in some darkened alleyway as he robs him of his watch and wallet have love in his heart?

Yeah, love of money. He doesn't give a damn about the status of the person who has it. That's irrelevant to him. Man, woman, young, old, straight, gay, white, black doesn't matter to him. Got it now?
 
Does the menacing guy who is holding a knife blade to the throat of a white wealthy businessman in some darkened alleyway as he robs him of his watch and wallet have love in his heart?

Yeah, love of money. He doesn't give a damn about the status of the person who has it. That's irrelevant to him. Man, woman, young, old, straight, gay, white, black doesn't matter to him. Got it now?

I do. He wants to attack those with wealth. New subset needing protection under the concept of hate crimes. Got it now?
 
No, I dont think eliminating hate crime laws eliminates hate.

Do you think making more hate crime laws with reduce hate?

It makes the penalty for the crime committed based on hate more severe. Hate cannot be legislated away only the unlawful exhibition of that hatred.

I just love the circular logic of the left. Crime is by definition an action, or exhibition as you put it, that is what is punished, motive should have nothing to do with the punishment, only the act itself. A crime against a person is by definition a hateful act, so I guess all crimes against people should carry enhanced sentences. Right?

The elements of a crime are actus reas(the act) and mens rea(guilty mind/intent). It is neither right or left it is a system the US adopted based on English Common law.

No some crimes are motivated by greed, lust....etc.
 
Fat people?

Actually, in Britain at least, there is a hate crime law for obese people.

So I can't yell at these bums who stand at the exits of Interstates at a traffic light holding "Homeless and Hungry" signs to get a job? That's not a hate crime in my book; that's a suggestion, which they refuse if you offer them a job, btw.

The problem is, how do we differentiate between the homeless that are... I guess honest? The ones who are there not of their own fault, but because something terrible happened to them and forced them on the streets.

Furthermore, I remember hearing on my local talk radio that one problem homeless people have is that they can't get a job because they're homeless, and to stop being homeless they need a job.

Anyway, the problem with the hate crime law is twofold:
First of all, how is killing, say, a gay person so much worse than killing a straight person? Why do there have to be special provisions in place for that?

Secondly, how do you prove a hate crime? If a psychopath walks up and shoots a black man, is it because he hates blacks or because he's crazy? And ultimately, what does it matter, because the crazy in question up and shot somebody!

We'd be lying if we said that there weren't people out there who did specifically target gays or women or blacks or prostitutes. These people are evil, and there's no justification for targeting a specific group of people to terrorize or kill. If you're killing gay people in alleys at night, that makes you a murderer; how does it being labeled a hate crime make that any different?

I do have a guess about it, though, and I'd like opinions on the matter:
It's my guess that "Hate Crimes" were put into place because there was, say, a large uprising of crimes targeting specific groups of people. Not just murder, of course - assault, B&E, harassment, etc. Because of this, laws were put into place to emphasize to people "Hey, if you mess with gays/latinos/women, you'll be punished harder than if you did it to anyone else." It was meant as a deterrent, to try and cut down on crime against specific groups.

Does that make sense?
But that said, isn't it obvious, that if someone really hates gay people and wants to beat up every single one he comes across, they're going to do it regardless of what the law says?

A hate crime is as defined by Wisconsin v. Mitchell.

Hate speech, which is protected free expression, is as defined by R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992).

The former concerns seeking out and committing a crime against a person solely due to his race, sexual orientation, or station in life. The latter involves hate speech which is protected because no imminent lawlessness can occur.

The issue, therefore, has nothing to do with a crime being ‘worse’ because the victim was a gay person, but that a criminal singled-out a victim solely because he was gay – or homeless, for that matter – and was motivated to cause harm to that individual because of his sexual orientation.

Again, for decades, indeed centuries, judges have taken infamous or heinous aspects of a crime into consideration when contemplating sentencing.

As the Mitchell Court noted:

In determining what sentence to impose, sentencing judges have traditionally considered a wide variety of factors in addition to evidence bearing on guilt, including a defendant's motive for committing the offense. While it is equally true that a sentencing judge may not take into consideration a defendant's abstract beliefs, however obnoxious to most people, the Constitution does not erect a per se barrier to the admission of evidence concerning one's beliefs and associations at sentencing simply because they are protected by the First Amendment.

Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 47 (1993).

Enhanced sentencing thus does not constitute a ‘special provision’ for any class of persons.

Note also that the ruling was unanimous, written by Chief Justice Rehnquist.

Unanimous, as in the likes of Scalia and Thomas concurred.

There are no legal foundations whatsoever for conservatives to object to enhanced sentencing on Constitutional grounds.
 
Did you not read my post at all? Hate crime laws are not stand alone laws but a means to add aggravating circumstances to a basic charge of assault, vandalism or arson due to premeditation and are pretty hard to prove except in the most clear cut cases where practically anyone would agree the criminal in question needs to be locked up longer than the law makes provision for.

I did read it. They are indeed stand alone laws at times. Hate crime legislation is by its very nature Orwellian. It sets up thought-control regulations which set up different levels of punishment for a given crime all depending on what someone might have been thinking when a crime was committed as well as depending on who the victim is,.

You are just flat wrong there, you cannot simply be charged with hating someone and you can't prove what someone was thinking in a court of law, premeditation has to provable by evidence no matter the crime, if someone gets the gas can that is usually in garage and puts it in their car and then uses it to douse a person or property and set them fire, that's provable premeditation. Procuring a weapon before using it on someone, laying in wait, stalking a victim, those are the sort of things that trigger hate crime penalties. There is no law against any sick thought only sick actions.

Correct.

There is no ‘Orwellian’ aspect to this; one is free to hate to his heart’s content, and express that hatred as aggressively as he sees fit. See: Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), and R.A.V, as noted above.

Should one’s hate speech manifest imminent lawlessness, however, the purveyor of such speech may indeed be exposed to criminal prosecution.

“I hate blacks and wish they would all die” is protected speech.

“Let’s meet at the convenience store in 30 minutes and kill the black owner when he opens” is not protected speech; anyone convicted of such a crime would likely be subject to enhanced sentencing.
 
Does the menacing guy who is holding a knife blade to the throat of a white wealthy businessman in some darkened alleyway as he robs him of his watch and wallet have love in his heart?

i guess the white guy could argue it a hate crime if the perpetrator was black.....
 
Does the menacing guy who is holding a knife blade to the throat of a white wealthy businessman in some darkened alleyway as he robs him of his watch and wallet have love in his heart?

Yeah, love of money. He doesn't give a damn about the status of the person who has it. That's irrelevant to him. Man, woman, young, old, straight, gay, white, black doesn't matter to him. Got it now?

I do. He wants to attack those with wealth. New subset needing protection under the concept of hate crimes. Got it now?

lots of people hating on the wealthy... you know, they even gave them a derogatory name..

:eek:


the 1%
 
Does the menacing guy who is holding a knife blade to the throat of a white wealthy businessman in some darkened alleyway as he robs him of his watch and wallet have love in his heart?

i guess the white guy could argue it a hate crime if the perpetrator was black.....

It doesn't matter what the skin color is of those involved. If the crime was motivated in whole or in part for racial reasons, then it is a hate crime.
 
I don't agree with the designation "hate crimes". Adding the homeless to the list just confirms, to me, the ridiculousness of it.

So you are in favor of hate crimes, then? You think we should do away with them?

George!!!! :eusa_drool:


I am 100% in favor of getting rid of hate crimes... and just flat out increasing all punishment to the enhanced level.

crime is crime...:tongue:
 
Does the menacing guy who is holding a knife blade to the throat of a white wealthy businessman in some darkened alleyway as he robs him of his watch and wallet have love in his heart?

i guess the white guy could argue it a hate crime if the perpetrator was black.....

It doesn't matter what the skin color is of those involved. If the crime was motivated in whole or in part for racial reasons, then it is a hate crime.


i understand that .... but if said businessman claims said perp kept saying fucking rich white man

your perp gets enhanced.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top