presonorek
Gold Member
How did such an vague and subjective catagory as (taa-daa) "HATE" end up as a modifier or category when it can't be proven substantially in a court of law? How? Nobody asked for it, and it makes ZERO sense legally, it's subjective as hell but seems to be a tool to target political opponents or rivals. We have to end this entire "hate crime" broad brush idiocy. End it.
I have a long story. You might not want to read it.
Well I worked at a place and a customer threatened to put a bullet in my head. Supposedly he said the same thing to my female boss. He was convicted of conveying threats to her but not for conveying threats to me. What was the difference? I told the DA that I didn't actually believe he would do it. My female boss said she believed be would do it.
Tell me how that makes sense. He committed two crimes but got convicted of one and not the other. The law in North Carolina is dependent upon the feelings of the victim which cannot be verified. Should assault be determined the same way? What if the person didn't punch hard and it didn't hurt? Is it still assault? This is somewhat related to the hate crime discussion. The crime should be the crime. A person's thoughts or feelings shouldn't be the basis for law since they are unverifiable but here we are.