Hate crimes/racism

[MaryL]

I am curious: HOW do you PROVE someone is racist, let alone what constitutes hate in a court of law? And do we actually NEED bias/hate crime laws? Shouldn't the heinousness of the crime itself be the determining factor, not ambiguous determinations?

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

I am curious: HOW do you PROVE someone is racist, let alone what constitutes hate in a court of law? And do we actually NEED bias/hate crime laws? Shouldn't the heinousness of the crime itself be the determining factor, not ambiguous determinations?

With out hate crimes, then the left wouldnt be able to define actions against a certain type of people. When blacks murder whites, it is just another day in the United States, but if a white person kills a black person, then it is hate with racial intent.

 

[justinacolmena]

I am curious: HOW do you PROVE someone is racist, let alone what constitutes hate in a court of law? And do we actually NEED bias/hate crime laws? Shouldn't the heinousness of the crime itself be the determining factor, not ambiguous determinations?

You don't need to PROVE anything at all in the US court system in order to convict someone of a crime. It's a forced-confession collective-bargaining plea deal at the district attorney's office. Plead guilty, shut up, and serve your sentence just like everyone else. Do as you're taught. 24x7 police supervision and probation for the rest of your life when you get out. Guns are banned, because you're a criminally insane idiot under federal law. No appeal. And you're not going to pass a background check for employment. Don't even ask. Just get off the property before you get arrested again.

 

[Scottish_Brexiteer_UK]

I am curious: HOW do you PROVE someone is racist, let alone what constitutes hate in a court of law? And do we actually NEED bias/hate crime laws? Shouldn't the heinousness of the crime itself be the determining factor, not ambiguous determinations?

It's really hard because you've got to get inside someone's head and sort of read their mind when they are committing any act to know for sure.

I think there is times you can legitimately connect the dots - if someone shouts the N word (or similar) when committing the act or if they brag about going to do xyz to someone because of what/who they are and then it happens. I think that's justified to call that a hate crime.

But outwith that it's too hard to prove and when people are being hellbent to prove it (irrespective of proof) then it's a dangerous road to go down.

There's a can of worms that was opened up the other week with Derek Chauvin when the judge/prosecution were allowed to instruct the jury to forget about intent and concentrate on the result of the action and that's all that matters here. Where that leads to is a scary place and anyone can end up there if something happens and it's the wrong time/wrong place for them.

The folk celebrating that really have no idea what they are actually celebrating - when they should be concerned.

A good example, in Scotland there was a football (soccer) match with Hearts and Celtic a few years ago where a Hearts fan jumped onto the trackside and assaulted the Celtic manager Neil Lennon several times. The prosecution in Scotland charged the offender with an assault aggravated by "religious prejudice" because Hearts fans are considered Protestants and Neil Lennon a high-profile Catholic .... long story short they couldn't prove the religious prejudice aspect and their determination to attach that to the case cost them because the guy did little jail time and was free to go shortly after the trial was finished whereas if they just concentrated on the serious assault aspect they could have got 100% of the conviction from that.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

I am curious: HOW do you PROVE someone is racist, let alone what constitutes hate in a court of law? And do we actually NEED bias/hate crime laws? Shouldn't the heinousness of the crime itself be the determining factor, not ambiguous determinations?

It's really hard because you've got to get inside someone's head and sort of read their mind when they are committing any act to know for sure.

I think there is times you can legitimately connect the dots - if someone shouts the N word (or similar) when committing the act or if they brag about going to do xyz to someone because of what/who they are and then it happens. I think that's justified to call that a hate crime.

But outwith that it's too hard to prove and when people are being hellbent to prove it (irrespective of proof) then it's a dangerous road to go down.

There's a can of worms that was opened up the other week with Derek Chauvin when the judge/prosecution were allowed to instruct the jury to forget about intent and concentrate on the result of the action and that's all that matters here. Where that leads to is a scary place and anyone can end up there if something happens and it's the wrong time/wrong place for them.

The folk celebrating that really have no idea what they are actually celebrating - when they should be concerned.

A good example, in Scotland there was a football (soccer) match with Hearts and Celtic a few years ago where a Hearts fan jumped onto the trackside and assaulted the Celtic manager Neil Lennon several times. The prosecution in Scotland charged the offender with an assault aggravated by "religious prejudice" because Hearts fans are considered Protestants and Neil Lennon a high-profile Catholic .... long story short they couldn't prove the religious prejudice aspect and their determination to attach that to the case cost them because the guy did little jail time and was free to go shortly after the trial was finished whereas if they just concentrated on the serious assault aspect they could have got 100% of the conviction from that.

crime is crime, at one time if you did a crime you were hung in front of a bunch of people, so others would realize that it was bad to break the law. Then along came progressive compassion, and we started to have 50 shades of grey on crime, where if someone just stole a car, it isnt as bad as shooting someone, so now it is worse because we have to play the prog game of guess how bad the crime is. Shoot the perps, and soon there arent perps to do any crime....

 

[MaryL]

Jurisprudence demands proof. Ever been a juror? The legal system demands exacting standards of proof. Lets expect those that allege racism actually be able to prove it with facts. Which begs the question: to what standard do we hold those that allege racism or hate crimes?

 

[Scottish_Brexiteer_UK]

I am curious: HOW do you PROVE someone is racist, let alone what constitutes hate in a court of law? And do we actually NEED bias/hate crime laws? Shouldn't the heinousness of the crime itself be the determining factor, not ambiguous determinations?

It's really hard because you've got to get inside someone's head and sort of read their mind when they are committing any act to know for sure.

I think there is times you can legitimately connect the dots - if someone shouts the N word (or similar) when committing the act or if they brag about going to do xyz to someone because of what/who they are and then it happens. I think that's justified to call that a hate crime.

But outwith that it's too hard to prove and when people are being hellbent to prove it (irrespective of proof) then it's a dangerous road to go down.

There's a can of worms that was opened up the other week with Derek Chauvin when the judge/prosecution were allowed to instruct the jury to forget about intent and concentrate on the result of the action and that's all that matters here. Where that leads to is a scary place and anyone can end up there if something happens and it's the wrong time/wrong place for them.

The folk celebrating that really have no idea what they are actually celebrating - when they should be concerned.

A good example, in Scotland there was a football (soccer) match with Hearts and Celtic a few years ago where a Hearts fan jumped onto the trackside and assaulted the Celtic manager Neil Lennon several times. The prosecution in Scotland charged the offender with an assault aggravated by "religious prejudice" because Hearts fans are considered Protestants and Neil Lennon a high-profile Catholic .... long story short they couldn't prove the religious prejudice aspect and their determination to attach that to the case cost them because the guy did little jail time and was free to go shortly after the trial was finished whereas if they just concentrated on the serious assault aspect they could have got 100% of the conviction from that.

crime is crime, at one time if you did a crime you were hung in front of a bunch of people, so others would realize that it was bad to break the law. Then along came progressive compassion, and we started to have 50 shades of grey on crime, where if someone just stole a car, it isnt as bad as shooting someone, so now it is worse because we have to play the prog game of guess how bad the crime is. Shoot the perps, and soon there arent perps to do any crime....

Agreed. There's an obsession to attach a prejudice or a hate element to every single crime as if to make it worse and give it a new dimension when there's no need.

We need to take a step back to go forward here.

If someone steals my car or assaults me - I don't really give a shit their reasons, their reasons are irrelevant - I just want them punished so it never happens to me (or anyone else) again off the lowlife.

But that's not enough for folk. They are obsessed with this notion of attaching an additional prejudice to everything.

 

[MaryL]

I've been a juror. I've also been a witness. I also seen the horrific results of the ginormous black crime rate. To blame racism or white cops, well. I don't argue with stupid people, they KNOW everything.

 

[justinacolmena]

It's really hard because you've got to get inside someone's head and sort of read their mind when they are committing any act to know for sure.

Of course. There's a court psychologist and it's a civil commitment for involuntary psychiatric hospitalization and an automatic revocation of gun rights for the rest of the criminally insane murderer's life. You don't even need a conviction for that.

 

[Scottish_Brexiteer_UK]

It's really hard because you've got to get inside someone's head and sort of read their mind when they are committing any act to know for sure.

Of course. There's a court psychologist and it's a civil commitment for involuntary psychiatric hospitalization and an automatic revocation of gun rights for the rest of the criminally insane murderer's life. You don't even need a conviction for that.

Yeah I know but I think that's something totally different (unless the debate as moved on and I've not read a couple of posts or something).

 

[justinacolmena]

Yeah I know but I think that's something totally different (unless the debate as moved on and I've not read a couple of posts or something).

Same same. Red flag laws then. It's an "emergency" gun confiscation by court order.

 

[badbob85037]

I am curious: HOW do you PROVE someone is racist, let alone what constitutes hate in a court of law? And do we actually NEED bias/hate crime laws? Shouldn't the heinousness of the crime itself be the determining factor, not ambiguous determinations?

All race crimes are racist giving special treatment to some group. All unconstitutional.

 

[justinacolmena]

All race crimes are racist giving special treatment to some group. All unconstitutional.

Whether it's white people or other privileged folks in general who have never been committed to a mental institution or adjudicated as mental defectives or criminally insane in a court of law.

 

[Mortimer]

I was once investigated, by the Verfassungsschutz, that translates to constitutional protectors, it is a special police force. I was not arrested, but they investigated my lap top and my flat looking for nazi symbols. I was taken to the police station for questioning. I suffered thirst and fear and intimidation, they asked "are you a racist" and I felt intimitated a little. I cooperated, and they didnt broke any law or human right though. That was only because I posted on a forum (I wont say which, but it doesnt exist anymore, it was closed down.). I hope it never happens again.

 

[Oz and the Orchestra]

I am curious: HOW do you PROVE someone is racist, let alone what constitutes hate in a court of law? And do we actually NEED bias/hate crime laws? Shouldn't the heinousness of the crime itself be the determining factor, not ambiguous determinations?

"Shouldn't the heinousness of the crime itself be the determining factor, not ambiguous determinations?"

So and with that in mind why did you for months insist that Chauvin was not guilty?
You don't think placing a knee on a man's neck for around 9 minutes When he is already handcuffed, lying prostrate on the ground, and begging to be allowed to breathe which he clearly couldn't. After all, Chauvin had his colleagues to back him, they all had guns and no doubt tasers. No need to keep his knee on Floyd's neck especially as Lieutenant Johnny Mercil, the Minneapolis Police Department’s coordinator on the use of force, told jurors the neck restraint applied by former police officer Derek Chauvin in the deadly arrest of George Floyd was unauthorized. Once handcuffed no need for that form of physical restraint.
So why didn't you like the jurors, find Chauvins actions a heinous crime and find him guilty on all counts - 3 in total?
Could it possibly have anything to do with the fact that Chauvin is white? Floyd was black and unlike the jurors, you are a disgusting racist?