I ask again: HOW is "HATE" even a legal category?

[MaryL]

Forensics can prove things things, blood spatter, bullets, fingerprints, objective things like that, How can you prove HATE? isn't that rather...subjective? HOW did that become acceptable standard? Just wondering.

 

[White 6]

Forensics can prove things things, blood spatter, bullets, fingerprints, objective things like that, How can you prove HATE? isn't that rather...subjective? HOW did that become acceptable standard? Just wondering.

They often prove it themselves with history of previous acts, witnessed speech and social media posts, being presented to juries.

 

[mak2]

Hate crimes are crimes that impact the victim, but also impact an entire group. This is not that difficult a concept to understand. Take a lynching for example. It did hang a person, killing him, but it also intimidated an entire community. This really is not that hard to understand. The intimidation of the group is what makes it a hate crime.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Hate need not be proven it is assigned.

 

[odanny]

Hate crimes are crimes that impact the victim, but also impact an entire group. This is not that difficult a concept to understand. Take a lynching for example. It did hang a person, killing him, but it also intimidated an entire community. This really is not that hard to understand. The intimidation of the group is what makes it a hate crime.

It's hard for Mary to understand.

 

[JoeMoma]

Hate crimes are crimes that impact the victim, but also impact an entire group. This is not that difficult a concept to understand. Take a lynching for example. It did hang a person, killing him, but it also intimidated an entire community. This really is not that hard to understand. The intimidation of the group is what makes it a hate crime.

Crimes that are not "hate crimes" also impact entire groups.

 

[mak2]

Crimes that are not "hate crimes" also impact entire groups.

For example?

 

[JoeMoma]

For example?

Rape.

 

[mak2]

Rape.

Was the rape committed to harm both the person raped? and intimidate a group of people? For example, if a woman walks by a group of construction workers and they inappropriately touch her and rip her shirt off, and then let it be known any other women walking down that street would get the same, just to keep the women off the streets during the day. That part about scaring others is the hate part.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Too late. Liberty is dead. The tree was never watered and it died.
Now they just need to take the guns, convert to digital currency, implant us all with chips and we'll all be the perfect disposable subjects for the few like Bloomberg, Gates and Soros.

A handful of evil men easily put 7 billion on their knees. Nice.

Oh...'Hate".....it's whatever they say it will be. They are the Law...we are to obey.

 

[JoeMoma]

Was the rape committed to harm both the person raped? and intimidate a group of people? For example, if a woman walks by a group of construction workers and they inappropriately touch her and rip her shirt off, and then let it be known any other women walking down that street would get the same, just to keep the women off the streets during the day. That part about scaring others is the hate part.

I'm not going to chase after moving goal posts. That said, potential victims of rape are intimidated by the rape of others whether the rapist intended to intimidate a specific group or not. The same can be said of other violent crimes.

 

[Concerned American]

They often prove it themselves with history of previous acts, witnessed speech and social media posts, being presented to juries.

OH BULLSHIT! There is no way to distinguish a hate crime. I submit that if you take some other person's life, that action is pretty clear that there is hate involved. There is absolutely no way that the penalty for killing any person should be based on intent. The victim is DEAD. The intent of the perpetrator or the identity of the victim is irrelevant.

 

[Stryder50]

Hate crimes are crimes that impact the victim, but also impact an entire group. This is not that difficult a concept to understand. Take a lynching for example. It did hang a person, killing him, but it also intimidated an entire community. This really is not that hard to understand. The intimidation of the group is what makes it a hate crime.

This makes the insurrections, autonomous zones, occupied zones, riots, looting, arson, etc. we saw in several USA cities in Summer of 2020 done by AntiFa, BLM, etc. classify as Hate Crimes.

 

[mak2]

This makes the insurrections, autonomous zones, occupied zones, riots, looting, arson, etc. we saw in several USA cities in Summer of 2020 done by AntiFa, BLM, etc. classify as Hate Crimes.

Maybe you are catching on. If violence directed at a victim was intended to intimidate a specific group for a goal of some kind, I can see how that is a hate crime. Good call.

 

[Captain Caveman]

They often prove it themselves with history of previous acts, witnessed speech and social media posts, being presented to juries.

What's the difference between hate and disagreeing? So for example, I disagree Transgender isn't normal, it's a mental issue. But the current rhetoric is that that's hate speech. So simply put, including the word hate in law is simply for political purposes and not for common sense. Science has been made political, disagreements have been made political.

Now, I don't want to drag subjects into the conversation, they are purely used as just an example and nothing more so no one needs to judge me or mention those examples.

 

[White 6]

OH BULLSHIT! There is no way to distinguish a hate crime. I submit that if you take some other person's life, that action is pretty clear that there is hate involved. There is absolutely no way that the penalty for killing any person should be based on intent. The victim is DEAD. The intent of the perpetrator or the identity of the victim is irrelevant.

Dude! Go into law, using your skills, passion and ability to be the one selected to argue these cases, taking your view before the juries, shown co-workers testifying to angry words of murder defendants, not against the victim, but against people of the victim's race, religion or sexual orientation. Go ahead, overcome the defendants, previous possible deeds, own words on Facebook, Twitter or other social media, knowing defendants have the right to refuse to speak, but often not the disciplined enough to keep their mouth shut.
The haters are just going to have to get used to the idea, they have to take their hate underground, never to speak of it in voice or writing, if they would like to get away without the added charge, after they beat, maim or kill somebody, just because of the victim's birth, skin color, religion or sexual orientation. I have no problem with hate crime laws. These assholes need to get a life and learn to live in a mixed society.

 

[White 6]

What's the difference between hate and disagreeing? So for example, I disagree Transgender isn't normal, it's a mental issue. But the current rhetoric is that that's hate speech. So simply put, including the word hate in law is simply for political purposes and not for common sense. Science has been made political, disagreements have been made political.

Now, I don't want to drag subjects into the conversation, they are purely used as just an example and nothing more so no one needs to judge me or mention those examples.

Degree. You and I disagree at times, but neither of us hates the other or really gives a big sht. At least, I don't. We're just too damned normal and conservative of thought and action, not wasting time and emotion on stupid sht.