Pegging The "Hate" Meter

[Lonestar_logic]

Please remind me what the importance was of coming up with this term, "hate crime". What was accomplished for language, society and/or criminal justice? It must have been important, as it has become so big, but apparently I missed it or have forgotten.
Sorry to bother you.

My understanding of it is that it's a way of getting around double jeopardy. If a white dude murders a black dude but gets found not guilty because the local system is racist, then the Feds can come in and still prosecute the white dude for a hate crime.

Show one instance where a person was found "not guilty" of the crime allegedly committed but found "guilty" of a hate crime

 

[Freewill]

So the guy in Charleston killed 9 people in cold blood. Assuming the reason was hate, how is the motive worse? Is it that there is another level of punishment you can apply that is higher than the punishment for killing 9 people? The term "hate crime" only exists to further separate us and support the left wing agenda. There can be no other reason for it.

I think the reasoning for hate crimes might have come out of group think. In other words was this guy acting alone or in conjunction with some sort of dangerous group? Much like if a Muslim or Christian committed a crime in the name of Allah or Jesus they too should be investigated into motive, ie is an Iman calling for jihad.

So by labeling this murder a hate crime now the federal government can get involved with the investigation. Otherwise it is just a murder handled by local authorities and we saw how that worked out in the 50s, 60s and 70s.

 

[Freewill]

I am not positive I have a problem calling some crime hate crimes. In the most recent case I can see no other reason for the willful murder of those poor people.

The problem comes in defining hate. Is it hatred for women that causes a man to murder his wife? I say no. But is it hate for a man to go into a church and murder people because of........ right now we can only guess...whatever was his motive? I would say definitely yes.

Do we need to know there are people out there killing other people for no other reason then hate? I say yes, just like we should never forget the Bataan Death march, the Holocaust, 9/11 or attacks just like what happened.

It's not so much that it's necessary that we know, but very important to understand why. We know that there are mentally unstable members of society. We know that some people carry tremendous hatred in their hearts. We know that some people have no sense of right and wrong. And, we know that some people are on the brink of going postal at any moment.

What we don't know is why. We don't understand the thought process well enough to be mind readers. We can't look at someone standing in the check-out line at the grocery store, and say that he/she is about to go postal and take out 20 innocent people. Our understanding is limited, and observation alone doesn't provide the answers.

In my opinion, people are taught to hate. Or maybe more correctly learn to hate. It is the teachers of hate which are the problem and they are the ones that need removed from society, so seldom does that seem to happen.

Reverend Phelps should never have had the soap box he had to spew his brand of hate. And i don't think Sharpton and Jackson should either.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I am not positive I have a problem calling some crime hate crimes. In the most recent case I can see no other reason for the willful murder of those poor people.

The problem comes in defining hate. Is it hatred for women that causes a man to murder his wife? I say no. But is it hate for a man to go into a church and murder people because of........ right now we can only guess...whatever was his motive? I would say definitely yes.

Do we need to know there are people out there killing other people for no other reason then hate? I say yes, just like we should never forget the Bataan Death march, the Holocaust, 9/11 or attacks just like what happened.

It's not so much that it's necessary that we know, but very important to understand why. We know that there are mentally unstable members of society. We know that some people carry tremendous hatred in their hearts. We know that some people have no sense of right and wrong. And, we know that some people are on the brink of going postal at any moment.

What we don't know is why. We don't understand the thought process well enough to be mind readers. We can't look at someone standing in the check-out line at the grocery store, and say that he/she is about to go postal and take out 20 innocent people. Our understanding is limited, and observation alone doesn't provide the answers.

In my opinion, people are taught to hate. Or maybe more correctly learn to hate. It is the teachers of hate which are the problem and they are the ones that need removed from society, so seldom does that seem to happen.

Reverend Phelps should never have had the soap box he had to spew his brand of hate. And i don't think Sharpton and Jackson should either.

The constitution protects those people to spew whatever nonsense they wish. Don't like it, don't listen to it or be a louder voice.

 

[Freewill]

I am not positive I have a problem calling some crime hate crimes. In the most recent case I can see no other reason for the willful murder of those poor people.

The problem comes in defining hate. Is it hatred for women that causes a man to murder his wife? I say no. But is it hate for a man to go into a church and murder people because of........ right now we can only guess...whatever was his motive? I would say definitely yes.

Do we need to know there are people out there killing other people for no other reason then hate? I say yes, just like we should never forget the Bataan Death march, the Holocaust, 9/11 or attacks just like what happened.

It's not so much that it's necessary that we know, but very important to understand why. We know that there are mentally unstable members of society. We know that some people carry tremendous hatred in their hearts. We know that some people have no sense of right and wrong. And, we know that some people are on the brink of going postal at any moment.

What we don't know is why. We don't understand the thought process well enough to be mind readers. We can't look at someone standing in the check-out line at the grocery store, and say that he/she is about to go postal and take out 20 innocent people. Our understanding is limited, and observation alone doesn't provide the answers.

In my opinion, people are taught to hate. Or maybe more correctly learn to hate. It is the teachers of hate which are the problem and they are the ones that need removed from society, so seldom does that seem to happen.

Reverend Phelps should never have had the soap box he had to spew his brand of hate. And i don't think Sharpton and Jackson should either.

The constitution protects those people to spew whatever nonsense they wish. Don't like it, don't listen to it or be a louder voice.

Nope, not all speech is protected.

 

[JoeMoma]

Please remind me what the importance was of coming up with this term, "hate crime". What was accomplished for language, society and/or criminal justice? It must have been important, as it has become so big, but apparently I missed it or have forgotten.
Sorry to bother you.

My understanding of it is that it's a way of getting around double jeopardy. If a white dude murders a black dude but gets found not guilty because the local system is racist, then the Feds can come in and still prosecute the white dude for a hate crime.

Show one instance where a person was found "not guilty" of the crime allegedly committed but found "guilty" of a hate crime

I do not know of a specific instance. However, this link supports what I said earlier.

What Is a Hate Crime

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I am not positive I have a problem calling some crime hate crimes. In the most recent case I can see no other reason for the willful murder of those poor people.

The problem comes in defining hate. Is it hatred for women that causes a man to murder his wife? I say no. But is it hate for a man to go into a church and murder people because of........ right now we can only guess...whatever was his motive? I would say definitely yes.

Do we need to know there are people out there killing other people for no other reason then hate? I say yes, just like we should never forget the Bataan Death march, the Holocaust, 9/11 or attacks just like what happened.

It's not so much that it's necessary that we know, but very important to understand why. We know that there are mentally unstable members of society. We know that some people carry tremendous hatred in their hearts. We know that some people have no sense of right and wrong. And, we know that some people are on the brink of going postal at any moment.

What we don't know is why. We don't understand the thought process well enough to be mind readers. We can't look at someone standing in the check-out line at the grocery store, and say that he/she is about to go postal and take out 20 innocent people. Our understanding is limited, and observation alone doesn't provide the answers.

In my opinion, people are taught to hate. Or maybe more correctly learn to hate. It is the teachers of hate which are the problem and they are the ones that need removed from society, so seldom does that seem to happen.

Reverend Phelps should never have had the soap box he had to spew his brand of hate. And i don't think Sharpton and Jackson should either.

The constitution protects those people to spew whatever nonsense they wish. Don't like it, don't listen to it or be a louder voice.

Nope, not all speech is protected.

The kind you mentioned by the folks you mentioned is.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Please remind me what the importance was of coming up with this term, "hate crime". What was accomplished for language, society and/or criminal justice? It must have been important, as it has become so big, but apparently I missed it or have forgotten.
Sorry to bother you.

My understanding of it is that it's a way of getting around double jeopardy. If a white dude murders a black dude but gets found not guilty because the local system is racist, then the Feds can come in and still prosecute the white dude for a hate crime.

Show one instance where a person was found "not guilty" of the crime allegedly committed but found "guilty" of a hate crime

I do not know of a specific instance. However, this link supports what I said earlier.

What Is a Hate Crime

I know what a hate crime is and you cannot show one instance where a person was convicted of a hate crime but not convicted of the crime itself. In other words, it's simply there to make liberal pukes feel good.

 

[JoeMoma]

Please remind me what the importance was of coming up with this term, "hate crime". What was accomplished for language, society and/or criminal justice? It must have been important, as it has become so big, but apparently I missed it or have forgotten.
Sorry to bother you.

My understanding of it is that it's a way of getting around double jeopardy. If a white dude murders a black dude but gets found not guilty because the local system is racist, then the Feds can come in and still prosecute the white dude for a hate crime.

Show one instance where a person was found "not guilty" of the crime allegedly committed but found "guilty" of a hate crime

I do not know of a specific instance. However, this link supports what I said earlier.

What Is a Hate Crime

I know what a hate crime is and you cannot show one instance where a person was convicted of a hate crime but not convicted of the crime itself. In other words, it's simply there to make liberal pukes feel good.

I am not an advocate for hate crime laws.

 

[PredFan]

Yeah we will eventually get rid of hate. At the same time we will ride unicorns to work, and fart perfume.

 

[Freewill]

Please remind me what the importance was of coming up with this term, "hate crime". What was accomplished for language, society and/or criminal justice? It must have been important, as it has become so big, but apparently I missed it or have forgotten.
Sorry to bother you.

My understanding of it is that it's a way of getting around double jeopardy. If a white dude murders a black dude but gets found not guilty because the local system is racist, then the Feds can come in and still prosecute the white dude for a hate crime.

Show one instance where a person was found "not guilty" of the crime allegedly committed but found "guilty" of a hate crime

I do not know of a specific instance. However, this link supports what I said earlier.

What Is a Hate Crime

I actually agree with your answer on how to silence them but it so seldom happens. Besides, if someone did try and do so would you not be defend Phelps' constitutional rights?

In my opinion, hate crime laws didn't come into being because liberals just wanted to take away someone's rights. They came into being because of aholes like the guy who shot those 9 people. Used to be, in the south, a guy could shoot up a church and get away with it with a sympathetic jury. The travesty of justice got so great that the federal government had to do something.

 

[Iceweasel]

I'm pretty sure hanging negros was a hate crime. "Hate crimes" have always existed it's just that now in our infinite wisdom we feel compelled to legislate thought.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Please remind me what the importance was of coming up with this term, "hate crime". What was accomplished for language, society and/or criminal justice? It must have been important, as it has become so big, but apparently I missed it or have forgotten.
Sorry to bother you.

My understanding of it is that it's a way of getting around double jeopardy. If a white dude murders a black dude but gets found not guilty because the local system is racist, then the Feds can come in and still prosecute the white dude for a hate crime.

Show one instance where a person was found "not guilty" of the crime allegedly committed but found "guilty" of a hate crime

I do not know of a specific instance. However, this link supports what I said earlier.

What Is a Hate Crime

I actually agree with your answer on how to silence them but it so seldom happens. Besides, if someone did try and do so would you not be defend Phelps' constitutional rights?

In my opinion, hate crime laws didn't come into being because liberals just wanted to take away someone's rights. They came into being because of aholes like the guy who shot those 9 people. Used to be, in the south, a guy could shoot up a church and get away with it with a sympathetic jury. The travesty of justice got so great that the federal government had to do something.

The guy who shot nine people will be convicted of murder and never see the light of day, if he's lucky enough to avoid the death penalty. Adding a "hate crime" to the equation does nothing.

 

[Freewill]

I'm pretty sure hanging negros was a hate crime. "Hate crimes" have always existed it's just that now in our infinite wisdom we feel compelled to legislate thought.

How is it "legislate thought" when someone gets tried for a hate crime? Consider Phelps. He spewed his brand of hate and was never tried for his hate filled rhetoric. Of course hate is in the eye of the beholder but I can't think of any other way to describe his dialogue. Now, had he acted on that hate, that would then be a hate crime. Laws are always like that. No matter which one is passed there will be someone who claims their rights are violated.

 

[DGS49]

I am not interested in doing the detailed research, but even in my own area there have been several incidents in recent years when the State prosecuted someone for a crime, then when "certain people" were not satisfied with the result, the Feds stepped in and re-charged the perpetrator under a "hate crimes" law. And I guarantee you if the State of South Carolina finds this low-life Not Guilty for some reason, he will be charged in the U.S. District Court with a federal hate crime, for the same conduct.

 

[JoeMoma]

The cops that beat Rodney King!

 

[Iceweasel]

I'm pretty sure hanging negros was a hate crime. "Hate crimes" have always existed it's just that now in our infinite wisdom we feel compelled to legislate thought.

How is it "legislate thought" when someone gets tried for a hate crime? Consider Phelps. He spewed his brand of hate and was never tried for his hate filled rhetoric. Of course hate is in the eye of the beholder but I can't think of any other way to describe his dialogue. Now, had he acted on that hate, that would then be a hate crime. Laws are always like that. No matter which one is passed there will be someone who claims their rights are violated.

If he committed a crime he committed a crime, period. Calling it a hate crime is an attempt to judge his motives and courts are not gods. They cannot see into someone's life experience to offer a value judgment.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Please remind me what the importance was of coming up with this term, "hate crime". What was accomplished for language, society and/or criminal justice? It must have been important, as it has become so big, but apparently I missed it or have forgotten.
Sorry to bother you.

What Is a Hate Crime

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Please remind me what the importance was of coming up with this term, "hate crime". What was accomplished for language, society and/or criminal justice? It must have been important, as it has become so big, but apparently I missed it or have forgotten.
Sorry to bother you.

My understanding of it is that it's a way of getting around double jeopardy. If a white dude murders a black dude but gets found not guilty because the local system is racist, then the Feds can come in and still prosecute the white dude for a hate crime.

Exactly. That and hate crimes are believed to be more descructive to society and must be dealt with accordingly.