should this alleged murder be charged with a hate crime?

Hate crimes are the biggest bunch of bullshit. A crime is a crime. many people commit crimes for the stupidest and vile reasons, why make one reason for performing the action more punishable than another stupid reasona. why make a crime of thought, which is essentially what this is. As much as racism and racially motivated crimes are deplorable, crimes is a crime.

Now to the question. I'm guessing if black person committed the crime against the white supremicist, and there was evidence it was racially motivated, they would prosecute it as a hate crime.
 

Of course not. Negroes kill whites all the time. It's what they do.

white-supremecist-suspectjpg-b9d8d174ceab1d53_small.jpg
 
Hate crimes are the biggest bunch of bullshit. A crime is a crime. many people commit crimes for the stupidest and vile reasons, why make one reason for performing the action more punishable than another stupid reasona. why make a crime of thought, which is essentially what this is. As much as racism and racially motivated crimes are deplorable, crimes is a crime.


A hate crime is one that's deliberately intended to intimidate the community at-large. It's not merely an act of violence. It's an act of violence done in a way that tells others, "you could be next." The intent of a crime should ALWAYS be taken into account. It's a necessary component of any justice system. Denying the existence of hate crimes is denying reality.
 
Hate crimes are the biggest bunch of bullshit. A crime is a crime. many people commit crimes for the stupidest and vile reasons, why make one reason for performing the action more punishable than another stupid reasona. why make a crime of thought, which is essentially what this is. As much as racism and racially motivated crimes are deplorable, crimes is a crime.


A hate crime is one that's deliberately intended to intimidate the community at-large. It's not merely an act of violence. It's an act of violence done in a way that tells others, "you could be next." The intent of a crime should ALWAYS be taken into account. It's a necessary component of any justice system. Denying the existence of hate crimes is denying reality.
Right, and the victim is even deader because it was a thought crime on top of being murder. :cuckoo:
 
Last edited:

Should the alleged murder be charged as a hate crime? That be the question?

Who the fuck knows blu. Maybe his wife offed him for running around on her. Might want to wait at LEAST till the cops complete their investigation. Maybe even till the DA looks over the case file?

I don't know if Mississippi even HAS a hate crime enhancement for murder, or if this killing runs up into murder. Might be manslaughter. Involuntary homicide. Etc. Just sayin', yanno -- Facts. Kinda handy to have.

Or maybe the DA will choose to seek the death penalty. In that case, hate crime enhancement is impossible because -- are you ready -- the convicted killer cannot be sentenced to More Deader.

All the hysteria about whose murder gets enhanced and whose doesn't bugs me. What the hell social agenda of anyone's should come before the rights of victims' families to see justice done on the murdering bastard who killed their loved one?

 
Hate crimes are the biggest bunch of bullshit. A crime is a crime. many people commit crimes for the stupidest and vile reasons, why make one reason for performing the action more punishable than another stupid reasona. why make a crime of thought, which is essentially what this is. As much as racism and racially motivated crimes are deplorable, crimes is a crime.


A hate crime is one that's deliberately intended to intimidate the community at-large. It's not merely an act of violence. It's an act of violence done in a way that tells others, "you could be next." The intent of a crime should ALWAYS be taken into account. It's a necessary component of any justice system. Denying the existence of hate crimes is denying reality.

and intent is taken into context, hence the varying degrees of particular crimes. If its 1st degree murder, intent and planning is taken into account. Racism shouldn't be any more of a prison sentence than someone who kills another because they are in a rival gang, or killing a witness, or many of the other stupid reasons why people kill others. If it was planned then its first degree murder
 
Last edited:
Hate crimes are the biggest bunch of bullshit. A crime is a crime. many people commit crimes for the stupidest and vile reasons, why make one reason for performing the action more punishable than another stupid reasona. why make a crime of thought, which is essentially what this is. As much as racism and racially motivated crimes are deplorable, crimes is a crime.


A hate crime is one that's deliberately intended to intimidate the community at-large. It's not merely an act of violence. It's an act of violence done in a way that tells others, "you could be next." The intent of a crime should ALWAYS be taken into account. It's a necessary component of any justice system. Denying the existence of hate crimes is denying reality.

and intent is taken into context, hence the varying degrees of particular crimes. If its 1st degree murder, intent and planning is taken into account. Racism shouldn't be any more of a prison sentence than someone who kills another because they are in a rival gang, or killing a witness, or many of the other stupid reasons why people kill others. If it was planned then its first degree murder


So you're basically saying that our justice system should not concern itself with threats of violence directed at communities. It's really incredible to see people here suggesting that threats should NOT be considered criminal acts.
 
Motive needs to be established first. Considering they were neighbors and had a working relationship there could be motives unrelated to race.
 
A hate crime is one that's deliberately intended to intimidate the community at-large. It's not merely an act of violence. It's an act of violence done in a way that tells others, "you could be next." The intent of a crime should ALWAYS be taken into account. It's a necessary component of any justice system. Denying the existence of hate crimes is denying reality.

There aren't different levels of being dead, you know. You murder somebody they're just as dead as anybody else who has been murdered. The reason for their murder is irrelevant. The result is the same and the punishment should be the same.
 
A hate crime is one that's deliberately intended to intimidate the community at-large. It's not merely an act of violence. It's an act of violence done in a way that tells others, "you could be next." The intent of a crime should ALWAYS be taken into account. It's a necessary component of any justice system. Denying the existence of hate crimes is denying reality.

There aren't different levels of being dead, you know. You murder somebody they're just as dead as anybody else who has been murdered. The reason for their murder is irrelevant. The result is the same and the punishment should be the same.

So someone who is sober and accidentally kills a pedestrian while driving should receive the same sentence as someone who planned and executed a direct target?
 
A hate crime is one that's deliberately intended to intimidate the community at-large. It's not merely an act of violence. It's an act of violence done in a way that tells others, "you could be next." The intent of a crime should ALWAYS be taken into account. It's a necessary component of any justice system. Denying the existence of hate crimes is denying reality.

There aren't different levels of being dead, you know. You murder somebody they're just as dead as anybody else who has been murdered. The reason for their murder is irrelevant. The result is the same and the punishment should be the same.

So someone who is sober and accidentally kills a pedestrian while driving should receive the same sentence as someone who planned and executed a direct target?

No because one is murder in the first degree and one is not.
 
A hate crime is one that's deliberately intended to intimidate the community at-large. It's not merely an act of violence. It's an act of violence done in a way that tells others, "you could be next." The intent of a crime should ALWAYS be taken into account. It's a necessary component of any justice system. Denying the existence of hate crimes is denying reality.

There aren't different levels of being dead, you know. You murder somebody they're just as dead as anybody else who has been murdered. The reason for their murder is irrelevant. The result is the same and the punishment should be the same.


If I kill you because of your race and leave evidence at the scene which tells the community at-large that my crime was racially motivated then it's not just about your death. I have both killed you AND threatened others in the community with violence. It's a deliberate tactic of intimidation designed to coerce the behavior of an entire group of people who were not targets of the crime. We all understand that this was the intent of racial violence in the bad old days. KKK types tried to coerce blacks into submission. Hate crime laws were passed for the expressed purpose of punishing this kind of community intimidation. The phenomenon is real and we all know it. Denying it is denying reality.
 
Last edited:
There aren't different levels of being dead, you know. You murder somebody they're just as dead as anybody else who has been murdered. The reason for their murder is irrelevant. The result is the same and the punishment should be the same.

So someone who is sober and accidentally kills a pedestrian while driving should receive the same sentence as someone who planned and executed a direct target?

No because one is murder in the first degree and one is not.

But "dead is dead" so why is motive in consideration in some cases but not the rest?
 
So someone who is sober and accidentally kills a pedestrian while driving should receive the same sentence as someone who planned and executed a direct target?

No because one is murder in the first degree and one is not.

But "dead is dead" so why is motive in consideration in some cases but not the rest?

You shoot someone with a gun, they are dead a second later.

Then there is David Ritcheson. Some white kids, who were just kidding around, stripped him naked, burned him with cigarettes, they tried to engrave a swastika into his chest, but it's not as easy as it sounds.

They kicked him with steel-toed boots, broke bones in his face. Then, someone got the bright ideas of forcing the pointed end of a PVC patio umbrella pole up his butt hole while yelling out racist names. Sodomy wasn't enough. Fun, but not enough.

Then they poured bleach on the victim. Oh, that must have stung. The attack lasted five hours before they just got tuckered out. They left Ritcheson lying behind the house for more than 10 hours. They probably thought he was tired too.

At some point, someone called an ambulance.

What's a perforated bladder?

Ritcheson's lungs failed, and he was placed on a ventilator. But don't worry, they started them again, so it was only "assault".

According to Harris County prosecutor Mike Trent, the "kids" probably poured bleach inside the pipe as high levels of toxins were found in Ritcheson's organs.

Those on the right say, "Hey, assault is assault. It's all the same." It was only a "joke" that went a little too far. Don't make a federal case out of it.

And 15 operations later, the kid, while wearing a shit and piss bag and being confined to a wheel chair, didn't even die. At least not then. No, some months later, he got tired of being the victim and all the surgery and finally killed himself. Think those kids that tortured him thought he was a "wuss"? You betcha.

So let's see. Hmmm, would I rather have a gunshot or go through what that kid went through? Wow, that's a hard one. Gee, I'll have to think about that.

Like they say on the right, "Dead is dead" and besides, those white kids didn't kill anyone. He killed himself. All they did was "assault". Like giving someone a black eye or a fat lip.

Geesh, some people just can't take a fucking joke.

Now, tell me how a "hate crime" is the same. Tell me how "dead is dead".

Where in the law is this kind of torture covered? Except when it's a "hate crime"?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top