Want To See A REAL Hate Crime?

[RadiomanATL]

All crimes are hate crimes of some sort.

Duh.

 

[Barb]

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.

Not to where socioeconomic concerns become involved, and they do. Are you really going to tell me that ONE area of life does not have ANY influence on all others?

 

[RadiomanATL]

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.

Not to where socioeconomic concerns become involved, and they do. Are you really going to tell me that ONE area of life does not have ANY influence on all others?

I wasn't aware that homosexuality was determined by socio-economic status.

It's still a non-sequiter.

 

[Barb]

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.

Not to where socioeconomic concerns become involved, and they do. Are you really going to tell me that ONE area of life does not have ANY influence on all others?

I wasn't aware that homosexuality was determined by socio-economic status.

It's still a non-sequiter.

Determined? Fuck. You can't be serious. The effects of discrimination of any form, doesn't have an effect on every area of life? Really?

 

[syrenn]

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

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.

Right. Here is the thing, hate crimes fall under special circumstances and carry a heavier punishment.

So why aren't rapes punished as hate crimes?

 

[Intense]

All crimes are hate crimes of some sort.

Duh.

And Impartial Justice should not forget it is supposed to be impartial, Einstein.

 

[Intense]

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

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.

Right. Here is the thing, hate crimes fall under special circumstances and carry a heavier punishment.

So why aren't rapes punished as hate crimes?

Why aren't all hateful crimes punished as hateful crimes? Let's ask the bleeding heart liberal how a justice system can get so fucked up, ant compound the incompetence by imposing selective punishment, of one type of crime, while ignoring all of the rest.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Not to where socioeconomic concerns become involved, and they do. Are you really going to tell me that ONE area of life does not have ANY influence on all others?

I wasn't aware that homosexuality was determined by socio-economic status.

It's still a non-sequiter.

Determined? Fuck. You can't be serious. The effects of discrimination of any form, doesn't have an effect on every area of life? Really?

You brought up redlining. I'm trying to find out what you mean. You keep trying to say "the effects of discrimination blah blah blah"...none of which has to do with redlining.

So again, your mention of redlining is a non-sequiter.

 

[RadiomanATL]

All crimes are hate crimes of some sort.

Duh.

And Impartial Justice should not forget it is supposed to be impartial, Einstein.

I agree. I think you mistook what I was saying

 

[George Costanza]

I think a crime is a crime is a crime.

An assault should be punished the same. Motivation does not enter into the equation for the purposes of punishment. A victim is not deader simply because the perpetrator didn't like gays or black people.

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?

On the contrary, I fully agree that a victim is just as dead, regardless of the motivation of the perp.

So please explain why involuntary manslaughter can get a perp as little as three years in state prison while a murder for hire can get a perp executed. In both cases, the victim is just as dead.

 

[Intense]

All crimes are hate crimes of some sort.

Duh.

And Impartial Justice should not forget it is supposed to be impartial, Einstein.

I agree. I think you mistook what I was saying

Sorry bout that.

 

[George Costanza]

Wrong analysis. Hate crime legislation does not single out one class of citizens for punishment. Anyone (white, black or green) can commit a hate crime. If we had a hate crime statute that said: "Any white person who attacks any person of a minority race for racially motivated reasons is guilty of . . . " then there would be an equal protection argument. But that is not the way hate crime statutes are written.

Justice is just as much about equal treatment of the victims as it is equal treatment of the perpetrators. At least it's supposed to be.

PS - We're not supposed to take motivation into consideration when determining guilt and sentencing. For example, there is no leeway in the law to not charge someone with theft if they stole because they are REALLY hungry. Nor does a person get time added to their sentence if they stole from a rich person b/c they hate the rich. This is affirmative action ran amuck.

I have no problem with circumstance dictating or having a role in punishment at all, as long as it follows reason. One size does not fit all any more than protected privileged classes are fair to the whole.

And just who do you see as a "protected, privileged class" with regard to hate crime legislation?

 

[George Costanza]

What assault is not motivated by hate?

None. All assaults are motivated by hate. But it is the assaults that are motivated by RACIAL hatred that are singled out for additional punishment.

You, um, aren't in FAVOR of racial assaults, are you . . . . ?

i'm against ALL assaults
you dont think only racial assaults should be punished, do you?

Good comeback. I too am against all assaults. I am just more against racially motivated assaults. HA!

(Your move)

 

[George Costanza]

Hate crimes have been discussed here for a long time. Much of the discussion is unfocused and many of the opinions expressed based upon incomplete information. Want to see what a real hate crime looks like? I just took this case in. The arrest report contains the following:

"The victim is standing in the rear alley of his apartment talking to friends. The suspects are also in the alley, and begin yelling at the victim, calling him a 'fag' and a 'faggot.' The victim, who is gay, ignores the suspects. The suspects then approach the victim and begin hitting him with their closed fists in the face and head area. The victm falls to the ground, and the suspects begin kicking the victim in the head. While the suspects are hitting and kicking the victim, the suspects continue to call the victim a 'fag' and 'fucking faggot.' One of the suspects also states, 'you should die' and 'go back to Mexico." The suspects then search the victims pants pockets, and one of the suspects removes the victim's immigration papers from his pants pockets. The suspects then flee on foot, W/B through the alley and out of sight."

Note that here is no question here as to WHY the suspects were attacking and robbing the victim - they SAY SO throughout the attack and the robbery.

All right, hate crime apologists - have at it. Come on and defend these animals.

There is no defending the morons who committed these crimes. That being said, I do not believe they should be punished any more or any less than the person that commits the same without using the offensive language.

Immie

You don't see a connection between the offensive language and the motivation for the attack?

 

[DiveCon]

None. All assaults are motivated by hate. But it is the assaults that are motivated by RACIAL hatred that are singled out for additional punishment.

You, um, aren't in FAVOR of racial assaults, are you . . . . ?

i'm against ALL assaults
you dont think only racial assaults should be punished, do you?

Good comeback. I too am against all assaults. I am just more against racially motivated assaults. HA!

(Your move)

i'm not a bigot, i'm equally against ALL assaults


ball back in your court

 

[Intense]

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?

On the contrary, I fully agree that a victim is just as dead, regardless of the motivation of the perp.

So please explain why involuntary manslaughter can get a perp as little as three years in state prison while a murder for hire can get a perp executed. In both cases, the victim is just as dead.

Premeditation V.S. Spontaneous reaction, or accident. Circumstance, not predetermined selective class protection. Is there a cheating Wife or Cheating Husband class under hate crimes? I'm White, living in Queens, a clear minority here, do I get privileged protection? I don't want it. I want an impartial system. I want justice, not privilege. Until the Court and the Law can get past Race and what ever divides us, we can't. We are obstructed by the law. When is it going to be okay to move on?????

 

[George Costanza]

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?"

Sure is. That's a hate crime. What's your point?

BTW - I would suggest reading some example of hate crime statutes (they are all basically the same) before engaging in debate about their wording.

 

[George Costanza]

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

Because a racially motivated attack is more culpable than an attack for non-racial reasons. It is not so much providing retirubtion to the victim as it is a desire to prevent such crimes from happening in the first place. The idea is, that increased punishment will act as a deterrent.

Why is there more interest in deterring racially motivated attacks than in deterring "regular" assaults? Because racially motivated attacks are more culpable.

You don't think they are?

 

[George Costanza]

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.

Prejudice against whom - racists who attack others for racially motivated reasons? Damn right. As Barb has noted - the more serious the crime, the more serious the penalty.

 

[Intense]

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

Because a racially motivated attack is more culpable than an attack for non-racial reasons. It is not so much providing retirubtion to the victim as it is a desire to prevent such crimes from happening in the first place. The idea is, that increased punishment will act as a deterrent.

Why is there more interest in deterring racially motivated attacks than in deterring "regular" assaults? Because racially motivated attacks are more culpable.

You don't think they are?

Nope. Both types of attack effect quality of life.