Want To See A REAL Hate Crime?

[bodecea]

and what makes this more serious than if they did it to a Hetero person?

Some folks would like us to institute 'thought crimes.'

We already have them....called premeditation and degree of intent. But it still has to be proved in a court of law as does hate crime intent.

 

[RadiomanATL]

OK - I understand that view. I certainly do not agree with it, but I understand that it is your view. We have a basic disagreement here, wouldn't you say? So - how about those Giants, huh?

Well, I'm at a loss at how you disagree with the thought that a victim isn't deader because of the motivation of the perp.

The victim is deader?

Dead, deader, deadest?

So the victim becomes deadest?

 

[uscitizen]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grbSQ6O6kbs"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grbSQ6O6kbs[/ame]

Obamacare results?

 

[uscitizen]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7wc55oXWf8"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7wc55oXWf8[/ame]

TBN

 

[PoliticalChic]

"I" do not claim to be able to read anyone's mind. But a hate crime requires a certain motivation. Motivation is what is in someone's mind, and that is impossible to determine UNLESS the person says or does something as he is committing the crime, which makes his frame of mind (his motivation) apparent.

I would say that, in this case, that is pretty evident, wouldn't you?

1. Now, watch how easily I read your mind: I posed this suggestion-
"How about we make a hate crime any crime committed by a member of one racial, religious, ethnic group against a member of a different group?
Good idea?
Then we wouldn't have to claim to be mind readers.
You mean you wouldn't support that? "
Now, why would you ignore it? Shouldn't we read an "anti-Fill In Group" motivation into this?
You ignored it because it would not benefit one of the liberal preferred groups, those covered by affirmative action.

2. And the reason why particular groups are 'hate-crime authorized'?
They represent the voting constituency that keeps Democrats in power.

Whadda ya' think?

First of all, this thread is moving so fast, I simply missed your post here. Let me address it before I go.

That's the way hate crime legislation IS worded. What do you think - that hate crime legislation is only directed toward one race, i.e., only white people will be punished if they commit a hate crime? Hate crime legislation is race neutral, both as to perps and victims. It does not mention any particular race or gender or sexual orientation. It merely provides for additional punishment when ANYONE commits a crime against ANYONE ELSE that is racially motivated.

As to your second assertion here, that is not the reason for hate crime legislation. You may perceive it as such, but that does not make it so.

"That's the way hate crime legislation IS worded. What do you think - that hate crime legislation is only directed toward one race, i.e., only white people..."

I have not read the legislation in question, but it seems disingenuous of you to pretend that you don't see the loopholes that make said legislation de facto racist: DA's and ADA's will decide which cases to prosecute as 'hate crimes.'

This will effectively produce exactly what I have suggested.


Is this a hate crime:

A Connecticut truck driver caught stealing beer was given two choices: quit or be fired.
But Omar Thornton, who complained about being racially harassed at work, had another plan.
He pulled out a gun and opened fire on co-workers, killing eight and then fatally shooting himself - pausing mid-rampage to call his mother and say goodbye.
"He said, 'I just shot the five racists who were out to get me. I took care of them, Mom,'" said Joanne Hannah, the mother of Thornton's ex-girlfriend.


Read more: Truck driver Omar Thornton kills 8 in Connecticut, rants about racism to mom before taking own life

Does it matter that all the dead were white? Or did he have to shout 'cracker' to be a hate crime?

"I would say that, in this case, that is pretty evident, wouldn't you?"

 

[Immanuel]

So it wouldn't have been assault, battery and robbery if the victim was straight?

We already have laws against such. Motivation behind the crime does not make the crime worse than if it was just a average straight joe who got beaten and robbed.

Yes, it does - and this is the point that hate crime opponents consistently either fail to recognize or intentionally overlook.

I guess, however, that if you don't see the attack in this case as being "worse" than a "plain" assault, there is little I can say. Fortunately, the legislatures in most states DO see an attack of this nature as being worse than a "plain" assault, PRECISELY because of the motivation behind it.

Why do you see the victim in this case as being more deserving of retribution than a straight white kid who was beaten and robbed simply because he was an easy target?

Immie

 

[Barb]

Islamist extremists tell you who they are, too. They say so. But nobody wants to call that "hate."

Suggest you try some other thread - you obviously have no understanding whatsoever of what this one is about.

First of all. I'm confused what the vic gay or Mexican? Second of all, no doubt that was either a racially, or sexually (possibly both) fueled crime. But I am STILL opposed to hate crime legislation b/c it is completely the opposite of what our justice system is SUPPOSED to be, blind and equal justice for ALL.. Any reasonable person would admit that this is so.

Intent is never a question in any other crime? Hate crime legislation simply codifies THAT intent. See. it isn't so hard, is it?

 

[Intense]

Suggest you try some other thread - you obviously have no understanding whatsoever of what this one is about.

First of all. I'm confused what the vic gay or Mexican? Second of all, no doubt that was either a racially, or sexually (possibly both) fueled crime. But I am STILL opposed to hate crime legislation b/c it is completely the opposite of what our justice system is SUPPOSED to be, blind and equal justice for ALL.. Any reasonable person would admit that this is so.

Intent is never a question in any other crime? Hate crime legislation simply codifies THAT intent. See. it isn't so hard, is it?

It does more than that. It establishes a greater penalty, selectively with prejudice.

 

[ConHog]

and WHO decides whether to charge a hate crime? I can tell you without doubt that if that charge is thrown in there it is rarely going to be a not guilty when the defendant is found guilty of actually committing the crime. So essence the state will be deciding what is and what is not a so called hate crime.

 

[Immanuel]

"I" do not claim to be able to read anyone's mind. But a hate crime requires a certain motivation. Motivation is what is in someone's mind, and that is impossible to determine UNLESS the person says or does something as he is committing the crime, which makes his frame of mind (his motivation) apparent.

I would say that, in this case, that is pretty evident, wouldn't you?

1. Now, watch how easily I read your mind: I posed this suggestion-
"How about we make a hate crime any crime committed by a member of one racial, religious, ethnic group against a member of a different group?
Good idea?
Then we wouldn't have to claim to be mind readers.
You mean you wouldn't support that? "
Now, why would you ignore it? Shouldn't we read an "anti-Fill In Group" motivation into this?
You ignored it because it would not benefit one of the liberal preferred groups, those covered by affirmative action.

2. And the reason why particular groups are 'hate-crime authorized'?
They represent the voting constituency that keeps Democrats in power.

Whadda ya' think?

First of all, this thread is moving so fast, I simply missed your post here. Let me address it before I go.

That's the way hate crime legislation IS worded. What do you think - that hate crime legislation is only directed toward one race, i.e., only white people will be punished if they commit a hate crime? Hate crime legislation is race neutral, both as to perps and victims. It does not mention any particular race or gender or sexual orientation. It merely provides for additional punishment when ANYONE commits a crime against ANYONE ELSE that is racially motivated.

As to your second assertion here, that is not the reason for hate crime legislation. You may perceive it as such, but that does not make it so.

This statement brings up a question in my mind.

You say Hate Crime Legislation is race neutral and I absolutely agree with that statement. However, I would ask this question of you. Do you think prosecution of Hate Crimes is race neutral or sexual orientation neutral? I don't think it is.

I used to be for the death penalty. Then someone... a liberal or two actually, pointed out that minorities, blacks mostly, are sentenced to the death penalty much more often than whites. Looking in to that, I found that their argument makes sense and I have somewhat changed my point of view on the death penalty.

That being said, and both of us understanding that the legislation is neutral when it comes to the victim, can you tell me that you really believe that latinos who beat a white man screaming, "damned gringos" while they do so, would be charged with a hate crime rather than just assault? Some how, I think prosecution in this case would be lacking.

Immie

 

[Barb]

So it wouldn't have been assault, battery and robbery if the victim was straight?

We already have laws against such. Motivation behind the crime does not make the crime worse than if it was just a average straight joe who got beaten and robbed.

Yes, it does - and this is the point that hate crime opponents consistently either fail to recognize or intentionally overlook.

So a rib that was broken during a so-called "hate crime" hurts worse than a rib that was broken during a plain assault? Someone killed during a hate crime is somehow deader than a normal homicide?



A crime is a crime is a crime. Period.

I guess, however, that if you don't see the attack in this case as being "worse" than a "plain" assault, there is little I can say. Fortunately, the legislatures in most states DO see an attack of this nature as being worse than a "plain" assault, PRECISELY because of the motivation behind it.

Legislatures in states and the feds used to uphold slavery as well. Your argument is an Appeal to Authority fallacy. Try again.

Not so much. Hate crimes send a message of intimidation to a specific group of people. Consider it as a targeted and violent red lining. You don't agree with red lining, do you?

Intent matters. Blocks, whole BLOCKS of homes burned once upon a not SO distant time in America. It was voter intimidation. Still, there were ALREADY laws against it. Weren't there?

 

[RadiomanATL]

Yes, it does - and this is the point that hate crime opponents consistently either fail to recognize or intentionally overlook.

So a rib that was broken during a so-called "hate crime" hurts worse than a rib that was broken during a plain assault? Someone killed during a hate crime is somehow deader than a normal homicide?



A crime is a crime is a crime. Period.

I guess, however, that if you don't see the attack in this case as being "worse" than a "plain" assault, there is little I can say. Fortunately, the legislatures in most states DO see an attack of this nature as being worse than a "plain" assault, PRECISELY because of the motivation behind it.

Legislatures in states and the feds used to uphold slavery as well. Your argument is an Appeal to Authority fallacy. Try again.

Not so much. Hate crimes send a message of intimidation to a specific group of people. Consider it as a targeted and violent red lining. You don't agree with red lining, do you?

Intent matters. Blocks, whole BLOCKS of homes burned once upon a not SO distant time in America. It was voter intimidation. Still, there were ALREADY laws against it. Weren't there?

Fallacy.

Because the laws weren't enforced is not a reason to pass more laws.

Personally, if someone I knew was a victim of assault, I would be angry that a perpetrator of another assault received a harsher sentence than the perp of the person I knew. I have no idea what you are talking about with a red lining.

 

[Barb]

First of all. I'm confused what the vic gay or Mexican? Second of all, no doubt that was either a racially, or sexually (possibly both) fueled crime. But I am STILL opposed to hate crime legislation b/c it is completely the opposite of what our justice system is SUPPOSED to be, blind and equal justice for ALL.. Any reasonable person would admit that this is so.

Intent is never a question in any other crime? Hate crime legislation simply codifies THAT intent. See. it isn't so hard, is it?

It does more than that. It establishes a greater penalty, selectively with prejudice.

Is a robbery treated differently than a simple assault? As a woman, I find your argument lacking. Hell, as a human I find that argument lacking. Intent matters in every level of arrest, prosecution, and sentencing. It always has and always will. And no, from the motivation for arrest to the motivation in sentencing, there is always a bias. Oddly enough, that bias isn't always what one might think. Certain arrests complement a service industry. Other arrests serve other ends, sometimes rhetorical.

 

[uscitizen]

Laws that are not enforced should be removed from the books.

As a mattrer of fact I would like to see the maximum number of laws capped at what it is now.
Wanna make a new one you have to get rid of one.

 

[Barb]

So a rib that was broken during a so-called "hate crime" hurts worse than a rib that was broken during a plain assault? Someone killed during a hate crime is somehow deader than a normal homicide?



A crime is a crime is a crime. Period.




Legislatures in states and the feds used to uphold slavery as well. Your argument is an Appeal to Authority fallacy. Try again.

Not so much. Hate crimes send a message of intimidation to a specific group of people. Consider it as a targeted and violent red lining. You don't agree with red lining, do you?

Intent matters. Blocks, whole BLOCKS of homes burned once upon a not SO distant time in America. It was voter intimidation. Still, there were ALREADY laws against it. Weren't there?

Fallacy.

Because the laws weren't enforced is not a reason to pass more laws.

Personally, if someone I knew was a victim of assault, I would be angry that a perpetrator of another assault received a harsher sentence than the perp of the person I knew. I have no idea what you are talking about with a red lining.

You're smarter than the average bear. Google it. You'll get the connection.

 

[syrenn]

and what makes this more serious than if they did it to a Hetero person?

Some folks would like us to institute 'thought crimes.'

What makes it more serious is the MOTIVATION for the crime. This is a crime that would never have been commited but for the sexual orientation/ethnic origin of the victim. Had a straight, white guy been standing there, nothing would have happened.

Crimes such as these are more serious than "plain" assaults, because of the motivation for the attack. You may disagree - but the legislature feels hate crimes should be punished more severely, which is why hate crime legislation has been enacted.

Question:

If you consider this a hate crime because it was only done based on the sexuality of the victim. Could you then consider all rapes hate crimes? As it is a male offender perpetrating his crime on someone solely because it is a female?

 

[Barb]

Some folks would like us to institute 'thought crimes.'

What makes it more serious is the MOTIVATION for the crime. This is a crime that would never have been commited but for the sexual orientation/ethnic origin of the victim. Had a straight, white guy been standing there, nothing would have happened.

Crimes such as these are more serious than "plain" assaults, because of the motivation for the attack. You may disagree - but the legislature feels hate crimes should be punished more severely, which is why hate crime legislation has been enacted.

Question:

If you consider this a hate crime because it was only done based on the sexuality of the victim. Could you then consider all rapes hate crimes? As it is a male offender perpetrating his crime on someone solely because it is a female?

I would agree. Rape is a crime of hate, intimidation, and control. It fits.

 

[ConHog]

Some folks would like us to institute 'thought crimes.'

What makes it more serious is the MOTIVATION for the crime. This is a crime that would never have been commited but for the sexual orientation/ethnic origin of the victim. Had a straight, white guy been standing there, nothing would have happened.

Crimes such as these are more serious than "plain" assaults, because of the motivation for the attack. You may disagree - but the legislature feels hate crimes should be punished more severely, which is why hate crime legislation has been enacted.

Question:

If you consider this a hate crime because it was only done based on the sexuality of the victim. Could you then consider all rapes hate crimes? As it is a male offender perpetrating his crime on someone solely because it is a female?

newsflash men rape men as well. Hell women even rape women and men.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Not so much. Hate crimes send a message of intimidation to a specific group of people. Consider it as a targeted and violent red lining. You don't agree with red lining, do you?

Intent matters. Blocks, whole BLOCKS of homes burned once upon a not SO distant time in America. It was voter intimidation. Still, there were ALREADY laws against it. Weren't there?

Fallacy.

Because the laws weren't enforced is not a reason to pass more laws.

Personally, if someone I knew was a victim of assault, I would be angry that a perpetrator of another assault received a harsher sentence than the perp of the person I knew. I have no idea what you are talking about with a red lining.

You're smarter than the average bear. Google it. You'll get the connection.

I know what it means, but there is no connection. Redlining has to do with financial institutions denying services to people within a geographic area.

It's a non-sequiter in relation to hate crimes.

 

[Intense]

Some folks would like us to institute 'thought crimes.'

What makes it more serious is the MOTIVATION for the crime. This is a crime that would never have been commited but for the sexual orientation/ethnic origin of the victim. Had a straight, white guy been standing there, nothing would have happened.

Crimes such as these are more serious than "plain" assaults, because of the motivation for the attack. You may disagree - but the legislature feels hate crimes should be punished more severely, which is why hate crime legislation has been enacted.

Question:

If you consider this a hate crime because it was only done based on the sexuality of the victim. Could you then consider all rapes hate crimes? As it is a male offender perpetrating his crime on someone solely because it is a female?

I actually consider all violent crimes hate crimes. It's the selective enforcement that really pisses me off. The hypocritical nature of the beast, the arrogance that they think they know better.