Lawyer: Lesbians’ assault on gay man can’t be hate crime

[Valerie]

Absolutely.

So, you DO think someone who intentionally runs someone over with their car is the same as an accident...

No, I don't. Your misunderstanding lies in your conflation of emotions with thoughts.

(And, I used the term "thought crime" in general because of the origins of the term - Orwellian.)

Murder is the unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of another human, and generally this state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide (such as manslaughter).

Murder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

^^ Policing thought...???

It is based on the act of planning, a motive, and a timeline.

It is not the same as an emotion.

Emotion was your word... Yes, intent and motive are established legal concepts.

You seem to be under the misconception that a person first gets tried for a particular crime, and once found guilty, then the question of whether it's a hate crime is considered. That's not how it works.

No, I am attempting to demonstrate the lack of harm in the laws' mere existence...

One does not get charged with a hate crime without already having been charged with another crime as well...

No harm? For the exact same crime, but for the emotion of the perpetrator, they are punished more?

Thought crimes? How Orwellian.

 

[Si modo]

So, you DO think someone who intentionally runs someone over with their car is the same as an accident...

No, I don't. Your misunderstanding lies in your conflation of emotions with thoughts.

(And, I used the term "thought crime" in general because of the origins of the term - Orwellian.)








It is based on the act of planning, a motive, and a timeline.

It is not the same as an emotion.

Emotion was your word... Yes, intent and motive are established legal concepts.

....

Damn, you are all over the place. I'm betting you think you have a point, though.

No, I am attempting to demonstrate the lack of harm in the laws' mere existence...

One does not get charged with a hate crime without already having been charged with another crime as well...

No harm? For the exact same crime, but for the emotion of the perpetrator, they are punished more?

Thought crimes? How Orwellian.

I'm betting you think you have a point here, too.

 

[Amelia]

No.

Why did you change my question to ellipses?

It very much sounds as if you are saying that the same penalty should be attached to the crime of breaking the window regardless of the motivation.

I'm glad if that is not what you think the legal standard should be.

But it sure did sound like it.

Why did YOU try to say something I clearly did not say?

I'm pretty sure my English was clear.

No, it is still not clear.

I still do not know whether you believe the same penalty should apply to vandalism whether it is done as an immature prank or whether it is done to terrorize a family because of their color.

Your language here very much sounds as if you do not believe the reason behind the intentional breaking of the window should be taken into consideration:

No harm? For the exact same crime, but for the emotion of the perpetrator, they are punished more?

Thought crimes? How Orwellian.

 

[Zander]

Why did you change my question to ellipses?

It very much sounds as if you are saying that the same penalty should be attached to the crime of breaking the window regardless of the motivation.

I'm glad if that is not what you think the legal standard should be.

But it sure did sound like it.

Why did YOU try to say something I clearly did not say?

I'm pretty sure my English was clear.

No, it is still not clear.

I still do not know whether you believe the same penalty should apply to vandalism whether it is done as an immature prank or whether it is done to terrorize a family because of their color.

Your language here very much sounds as if you do not believe the reason behind the intentional breaking of the window should be taken into consideration:

No harm? For the exact same crime, but for the emotion of the perpetrator, they are punished more?

Thought crimes? How Orwellian.

If the result of the vandalism is the same- why does it matter?

 

[Si modo]

Why did you change my question to ellipses?

It very much sounds as if you are saying that the same penalty should be attached to the crime of breaking the window regardless of the motivation.

I'm glad if that is not what you think the legal standard should be.

But it sure did sound like it.

Why did YOU try to say something I clearly did not say?

I'm pretty sure my English was clear.

No, it is still not clear.

I still do not know whether you believe the same penalty should apply to vandalism whether it is done as an immature prank or whether it is done to terrorize a family because of their color.

Your language here very much sounds as if you do not believe the reason behind the intentional breaking of the window should be taken into consideration:

No harm? For the exact same crime, but for the emotion of the perpetrator, they are punished more?

Thought crimes? How Orwellian.

OK, so you really wanted to ask me a question and not tell me what I was saying.

To address your question, yes the same penalty should apply. Let's say the vandalism is keying my car.

I don't give a shit if some immature punk keyed my car or some moron who hates women did it. My car is still keyed and I'm still pissed off because I have to take time to get it in for repairs and spend money to repair it. That's from the hypothetical victim's standpoint.

From the principle standpoint, it is beyond stupid to punish someone for having an emotion. In both examples you provided, there were emotions involved by the perpetrator. When the USA starts assigning some sort of legal value to different emotions, we all should be concerned.

 

[Amelia]

Why did YOU try to say something I clearly did not say?

I'm pretty sure my English was clear.

No, it is still not clear.

I still do not know whether you believe the same penalty should apply to vandalism whether it is done as an immature prank or whether it is done to terrorize a family because of their color.

Your language here very much sounds as if you do not believe the reason behind the intentional breaking of the window should be taken into consideration:

No harm? For the exact same crime, but for the emotion of the perpetrator, they are punished more?

Thought crimes? How Orwellian.

If the result of the vandalism is the same- why does it matter?

The result of the vandalism is probably not the same. Sure, in both cases the immediate physical result is a broken window.

But in one case it's something a neighborhood might be able to laugh about - Halloween hijinx which got out of hand. The person who breaks the window pays for it and no lasting damage is done.

In the other case, the trauma will likely be deep and enduring. Job loss, home loss, nightmares, reinforcing generational beliefs that the American dream is not for this family, etc.



And the fact that you said something which would make me feel compelled to even try to explain that is disturbing.


Hate crimes deserve recognition for the terrorist acts that they are, and they can deserve more punishment than other crimes with the same immediate physical effect.

 

[Valerie]

Why did YOU try to say something I clearly did not say?

I'm pretty sure my English was clear.

No, it is still not clear.

I still do not know whether you believe the same penalty should apply to vandalism whether it is done as an immature prank or whether it is done to terrorize a family because of their color.

Your language here very much sounds as if you do not believe the reason behind the intentional breaking of the window should be taken into consideration:

No harm? For the exact same crime, but for the emotion of the perpetrator, they are punished more?

Thought crimes? How Orwellian.

OK, so you really wanted to ask me a question and not tell me what I was saying.

To address your question, yes the same penalty should apply. Let's say the vandalism is keying my car.

I don't give a shit if some immature punk keyed my car or some moron who hates women did it. My car is still keyed and I'm still pissed off because I have to take time to get it in for repairs and spend money to repair it. That's from the hypothetical victim's standpoint.

From the principle standpoint, it is beyond stupid to punish someone for having an emotion. In both examples you provided, there were emotions involved by the perpetrator. When the USA starts assigning some sort of legal value to different emotions, we all should be concerned.

You might have a point if any of the legal repercussions were actually based on emotion... Other factors were INVOLVED.

 

[manifold]

Now we're devolving into semantics.

Intent matters.

Law which did not take intent into consideration would be a travesty.

Law need not take intent into consideration, that's the domain of judge and jury IMO.

 

[Si modo]

No, it is still not clear.

I still do not know whether you believe the same penalty should apply to vandalism whether it is done as an immature prank or whether it is done to terrorize a family because of their color.

Your language here very much sounds as if you do not believe the reason behind the intentional breaking of the window should be taken into consideration:

OK, so you really wanted to ask me a question and not tell me what I was saying.

To address your question, yes the same penalty should apply. Let's say the vandalism is keying my car.

I don't give a shit if some immature punk keyed my car or some moron who hates women did it. My car is still keyed and I'm still pissed off because I have to take time to get it in for repairs and spend money to repair it. That's from the hypothetical victim's standpoint.

From the principle standpoint, it is beyond stupid to punish someone for having an emotion. In both examples you provided, there were emotions involved by the perpetrator. When the USA starts assigning some sort of legal value to different emotions, we all should be concerned.

You might have a point if any of the legal repercussions were actually based on emotion... Other factors were INVOLVED.

When did hate stop being an emotion?

We ARE talking about "hate crimes" or are you off on your own somewhere else?

 

[Valerie]

OK, so you really wanted to ask me a question and not tell me what I was saying.

To address your question, yes the same penalty should apply. Let's say the vandalism is keying my car.

I don't give a shit if some immature punk keyed my car or some moron who hates women did it. My car is still keyed and I'm still pissed off because I have to take time to get it in for repairs and spend money to repair it. That's from the hypothetical victim's standpoint.

From the principle standpoint, it is beyond stupid to punish someone for having an emotion. In both examples you provided, there were emotions involved by the perpetrator. When the USA starts assigning some sort of legal value to different emotions, we all should be concerned.

You might have a point if any of the legal repercussions were actually based on emotion... Other factors were INVOLVED.

When did hate stop being an emotion?

We ARE talking about "hate crimes" or are you off on your own somewhere else?

The Emotion is not the crime...

 

[Si modo]

You might have a point if any of the legal repercussions were actually based on emotion... Other factors were INVOLVED.

When did hate stop being an emotion?

We ARE talking about "hate crimes" or are you off on your own somewhere else?

The Emotion is not the crime...

But the emotion is punished.

 

[Amelia]

Now we're devolving into semantics.

Intent matters.

Law which did not take intent into consideration would be a travesty.

Law need not take intent into consideration, that's the domain of judge and jury IMO.

The law needs to be written so as to allow the judge and jury to take intent into consideration.

 

[Zander]

No, it is still not clear.

I still do not know whether you believe the same penalty should apply to vandalism whether it is done as an immature prank or whether it is done to terrorize a family because of their color.

Your language here very much sounds as if you do not believe the reason behind the intentional breaking of the window should be taken into consideration:

If the result of the vandalism is the same- why does it matter?

The result of the vandalism is probably not the same. Sure, in both cases the immediate physical result is a broken window.

But in one case it's something a neighborhood might be able to laugh about - Halloween hijinx which got out of hand. The person who breaks the window pays for it and no lasting damage is done.

In the other case, the trauma will likely be deep and enduring. Job loss, home loss, nightmares, reinforcing generational beliefs that the American dream is not for this family, etc.



And the fact that you said something which would make me feel compelled to even try to explain that is disturbing.


Hate crimes deserve recognition for the terrorist acts that they are, and they can deserve more punishment than other crimes with the same immediate physical effect.

I disagree.

The punishment for intentionally breaking a window should be the same regardless of the color, race, or sexual preference of the victims.

When you separate groups and make one groups pain or loss more important than another- you are committing a crime against society.

 

[Si modo]

If the result of the vandalism is the same- why does it matter?

The result of the vandalism is probably not the same. Sure, in both cases the immediate physical result is a broken window.

But in one case it's something a neighborhood might be able to laugh about - Halloween hijinx which got out of hand. The person who breaks the window pays for it and no lasting damage is done.

In the other case, the trauma will likely be deep and enduring. Job loss, home loss, nightmares, reinforcing generational beliefs that the American dream is not for this family, etc.



And the fact that you said something which would make me feel compelled to even try to explain that is disturbing.


Hate crimes deserve recognition for the terrorist acts that they are, and they can deserve more punishment than other crimes with the same immediate physical effect.

I disagree.

The punishment for intentionally breaking a window should be the same regardless of the color, race, or sexual preference of the victims.

When you separate groups and make one groups pain or loss more important than another- you are committing a crime against society.

Right. In the USA, no one is above (or below) the law.

 

[Amelia]

If the result of the vandalism is the same- why does it matter?

The result of the vandalism is probably not the same. Sure, in both cases the immediate physical result is a broken window.

But in one case it's something a neighborhood might be able to laugh about - Halloween hijinx which got out of hand. The person who breaks the window pays for it and no lasting damage is done.

In the other case, the trauma will likely be deep and enduring. Job loss, home loss, nightmares, reinforcing generational beliefs that the American dream is not for this family, etc.



And the fact that you said something which would make me feel compelled to even try to explain that is disturbing.


Hate crimes deserve recognition for the terrorist acts that they are, and they can deserve more punishment than other crimes with the same immediate physical effect.

I disagree.

The punishment for intentionally breaking a window should be the same regardless of the color, race, or sexual preference of the victims.

When you separate groups and make one groups pain or loss more important than another- you are committing a crime against society.

The crime needs to be defined well. When the rock is a weapon of terrorism, the crime is not merely vandalism.

When the crime is an attempt to make a 30-year-old father fear for the life of his 4-year-old daughter, it is much more than just breaking a window.

 

[manifold]

Now we're devolving into semantics.

Intent matters.

Law which did not take intent into consideration would be a travesty.

Law need not take intent into consideration, that's the domain of judge and jury IMO.

The law needs to be written so as to allow the judge and jury to take intent into consideration.

Hate crime laws do the exact opposite sweetie.

 

[freedombecki]

The result of the vandalism is probably not the same. Sure, in both cases the immediate physical result is a broken window.

But in one case it's something a neighborhood might be able to laugh about - Halloween hijinx which got out of hand. The person who breaks the window pays for it and no lasting damage is done.

In the other case, the trauma will likely be deep and enduring. Job loss, home loss, nightmares, reinforcing generational beliefs that the American dream is not for this family, etc.



And the fact that you said something which would make me feel compelled to even try to explain that is disturbing.


Hate crimes deserve recognition for the terrorist acts that they are, and they can deserve more punishment than other crimes with the same immediate physical effect.

I disagree.

The punishment for intentionally breaking a window should be the same regardless of the color, race, or sexual preference of the victims.

When you separate groups and make one groups pain or loss more important than another- you are committing a crime against society.

The crime needs to be defined well. When the rock is a weapon of terrorism, the crime is not merely vandalism.

When the crime is an attempt to make a 30-year-old father fear for the life of his 4-year-old daughter, it is much more than just breaking a window.

Well, FWIW, committing a crime is terrorism to its victim.

 

[Ravi]

Did they beat him up because he is gay or because he used racial slurs against them?

Too little information to decide, imo.

It doesn't matter. We already have laws against assault. We don't need a special law because the victim is a minority.

They'd get charged with assault regardless. But motive matters, no? It does in cases of self defense.

 

[Ravi]

we've got this thing called presumption of innocence, perhaps you've heard of it?

this is the same line of thinking that says if one has nothing to hide, then increased govt surveillance without a warrant shouldn't bother one.

do you agree with that?

I disagree that is the same line of thinking... If someone is not already convicted of a crime they do not stand to face any hate crime charges...

You need to educate yourself about how hate crime prosecution works.

It has to be provable.

 

[Ravi]

Are you seriously saying ....

No.

Why did you change my question to ellipses?

It very much sounds as if you are saying that the same penalty should be attached to the crime of breaking the window regardless of the motivation.

I'm glad if that is not what you think the legal standard should be.

But it sure did sound like it.

It wasn't an ellipses, it was a sand trail.