We must eliminate hate crime laws

[anotherlife]

It's the end of the world! The sky is falling! Trump is going to kill black people!

As long as he doesn't kill the Jews ... that would be a hate crime won't it? . Hehehe.

He isn't going to kill anyone. Most of these libs are out of their minds.

Oh dammit and I was looking forward to a little excitement.

 

[anotherlife]

I wonder what Trump would do if you tell hm about his momma, like a few yo momma jokes?

 

[TheOldSchool]

Well let me ask you... the person burned down a Muslim owned restaurant, with the intent of scaring other Muslims away from starting their own restaurants. Do you think that's okay?

Could have just been some nut wanting to burn a random building. You can't assume he burned it down because he hated Muslims.

Yeah maybe Bin Laden attacked the towers because he wanted to attack a random building, and not because he wanted to scare Americans

'Scaring' people should not be a crime. Dear God, save us from libtards

Terrorism should be called "random act of violence with no motive"

 

[Tilly]

Well let me ask you... the person burned down a Muslim owned restaurant, with the intent of scaring other Muslims away from starting their own restaurants. Do you think that's okay?

Could have just been some nut wanting to burn a random building. You can't assume he burned it down because he hated Muslims.

Yeah maybe Bin Laden attacked the towers because he wanted to attack a random building, and not because he wanted to scare Americans

'Scaring' people should not be a crime. Dear God, save us from libtards

Terrorism should be called "random act of violence with no motive"

Terrorising and 'scaring' aren't the same. I'm scared of wasps, I'm not terrorised by them.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Well let me ask you... the person burned down a Muslim owned restaurant, with the intent of scaring other Muslims away from starting their own restaurants. Do you think that's okay?

Could have just been some nut wanting to burn a random building. You can't assume he burned it down because he hated Muslims.

Yeah maybe Bin Laden attacked the towers because he wanted to attack a random building, and not because he wanted to scare Americans

'Scaring' people should not be a crime. Dear God, save us from libtards

Terrorism should be called "random act of violence with no motive"

Terrorising and 'scaring' aren't the same. I'm scared of wasps, I'm not terrorised by them.

A wasp scared of wasps? I've seen it all

 

[ChrisL]

Could have just been some nut wanting to burn a random building. You can't assume he burned it down because he hated Muslims.

Yeah maybe Bin Laden attacked the towers because he wanted to attack a random building, and not because he wanted to scare Americans

'Scaring' people should not be a crime. Dear God, save us from libtards

Terrorism should be called "random act of violence with no motive"

Terrorising and 'scaring' aren't the same. I'm scared of wasps, I'm not terrorised by them.

A wasp scared of wasps? I've seen it all

I don't think you know what a WASP is. Lol.

 

[Dubya Da Last Repug Prez]

The Repug Party...the party of "logic of reason"....LOL!! The party that started a disastrous war in Iraq for no damn good reason. The party that STILL believes tax cuts for the rich helps the economy, despite a shitty economy the entire time that Dubya was president. I could go on and on. On top of being an unabashed bigot, you're a fucking idiot.

A shitty economy? The highest unemployment ever reached under W. was just over 7%. It went over 10% under Barack Obama.

Barack Obama saw a record number of food stamps during his administration (more than W.).

Barack Obama saw 3.7 million more women pushed into poverty than under W.

Barack Obama saw a record number of people leave the labor force during his administration (more than W.).

Barack Obama became the first and only president in U.S. history not to see at least one year of 3% or more GDP growth (Jimmy Carter's administration was an economic disaster and even he managed to achieve that once in 4 years while Obama couldn't do it once in 8 years).

You're not only an asshole Dubya Da Last Repug Prez, but you're also ignorant as hell.

Because Obama was cleaning up the pile of shit that Bush left for him, you fucking idiot. Only a total dumb ass like you would blame Obama for Bush's fuck-ups. The economy was losing 700,000 jobs per month when Obama took office in Jan 2009. That is ALL Bush's fault.

You are unbelievably stupid. You're a fucking goober Repug lightweight with no facts, no game, and no intellect.

 

[beagle9]

By reviewing the evidence in a case right ?

Wrong. Dead wrong. In the history of criminal prosecution, what evidence was ever introduced that indisputably proved what someone was thinking? Why do you think someone cannot testify as to what a defendant was thinking?

. So your saying that after reviewing the evidence, a judge can't make a determination of motive ??

Exactly. It is literally impossible to know the thoughts and feelings of another human being. Which is why nobody is allowed to testify as to what a defendant was thinking other than the defendant (if they so chose to take the stand).

. Impossible even though there is evidence that will show exactly what it was that they were thinking, and this be it based upon the physical evidence that was found for example on computers etc. ????

 

[P@triot]

Exactly. It is literally impossible to know the thoughts and feelings of another human being. Which is why nobody is allowed to testify as to what a defendant was thinking other than the defendant (if they so chose to take the stand).

. Impossible even though there is evidence that will show exactly what it was that they were thinking, and this be it based upon the physical evidence that was found for example on computers etc. ????

No such evidence has ever existed because no such technology exists to show thoughts. If someone posts day and night about how much they hate Jews and they join some Nazi group, and then they kill a person of the jewish faith, it doesn't mean they killed that person because they hated Jews. They might not have even known that person was jewish. They may have killed them out of self-defense. They may have killed them for money. They may have killed them out of jealousy. What someone said on the internet yesterday does not prove what was in their mind during an incident today.

It's beyond absurd to pretend that you can read thoughts.

 

[beagle9]

Exactly. It is literally impossible to know the thoughts and feelings of another human being. Which is why nobody is allowed to testify as to what a defendant was thinking other than the defendant (if they so chose to take the stand).

. Impossible even though there is evidence that will show exactly what it was that they were thinking, and this be it based upon the physical evidence that was found for example on computers etc. ????

No such evidence has ever existed because no such technology exists to show thoughts. If someone posts day and night about how much they hate Jews and they join some Nazi group, and then they kill a person of the jewish faith, it doesn't mean they killed that person because they hated Jews. They might not have even known that person was jewish. They may have killed them out of self-defense. They may have killed them for money. They may have killed them out of jealousy. What someone said on the internet yesterday does not prove what was in their mind during an incident today.

It's beyond absurd to pretend that you can read thoughts.

. You never went to law school did you ?

 

[P@triot]

Terrorising and 'scaring' aren't the same. I'm scared of wasps, I'm not terrorised by them.

A wasp scared of wasps? I've seen it all

I don't think you know what a WASP is. Lol.[/QUOTE]
That nitwit doesn't know what a lot of things are. For example - he certainly doesn't know how to spell. "Terror....rising?" It's terrorizing, you nitwit.

 

[P@triot]

Exactly. It is literally impossible to know the thoughts and feelings of another human being. Which is why nobody is allowed to testify as to what a defendant was thinking other than the defendant (if they so chose to take the stand).

. Impossible even though there is evidence that will show exactly what it was that they were thinking, and this be it based upon the physical evidence that was found for example on computers etc. ????

No such evidence has ever existed because no such technology exists to show thoughts. If someone posts day and night about how much they hate Jews and they join some Nazi group, and then they kill a person of the jewish faith, it doesn't mean they killed that person because they hated Jews. They might not have even known that person was jewish. They may have killed them out of self-defense. They may have killed them for money. They may have killed them out of jealousy. What someone said on the internet yesterday does not prove what was in their mind during an incident today.

It's beyond absurd to pretend that you can read thoughts.

You never went to law school did you ?

You never went to high school, did you? Because it only takes basic reading skills to know that nobody can possibly know the thoughts of another person.

If you asked a witness "what was the defendant thinking during the crime" would the defense attorney object and would the judge uphold the objection? Yes or No? This is a simple question chief.

 

[beagle9]

Exactly. It is literally impossible to know the thoughts and feelings of another human being. Which is why nobody is allowed to testify as to what a defendant was thinking other than the defendant (if they so chose to take the stand).

. Impossible even though there is evidence that will show exactly what it was that they were thinking, and this be it based upon the physical evidence that was found for example on computers etc. ????

No such evidence has ever existed because no such technology exists to show thoughts. If someone posts day and night about how much they hate Jews and they join some Nazi group, and then they kill a person of the jewish faith, it doesn't mean they killed that person because they hated Jews. They might not have even known that person was jewish. They may have killed them out of self-defense. They may have killed them for money. They may have killed them out of jealousy. What someone said on the internet yesterday does not prove what was in their mind during an incident today.

It's beyond absurd to pretend that you can read thoughts.

You never went to law school did you ?

You never went to high school, did you? Because it only takes basic reading skills to know that nobody can possibly know the thoughts of another person.

If you asked a witness "what was the defendant thinking during the crime" would the defense attorney object and would the judge uphold the objection? Yes or No? This is a simple question chief.

. Over ruled sayeth the Judge to the defense attorney, and the prosecutor would continue building motive in the eyes of the jury with the evidence that to include a line of questioning that shows motive just as well as physical evidence that shows the final act in which was based upon the motive for a slam dunk.

 

[P@triot]

Over ruled sayeth the Judge to the defense attorney, and the prosecutor would continue building motive in the eyes of the jury with the evidence that to include a line of questioning that shows motive just as well as physical evidence that shows the final act in which was based upon the motive for a slam dunk.

Well you clearly know as much about the law as a member of the KKK knows about living as an African-American. The fact that you acknowledge that the defense attorney would even object in the first place is fall-down hilarious. If the law made it ok for a witness to speculate as to the thoughts of a defendant, the defense attorney wouldn't bother objecting in the first place (they don't object to things that are legal)

 

[beagle9]

Over ruled sayeth the Judge to the defense attorney, and the prosecutor would continue building motive in the eyes of the jury with the evidence that to include a line of questioning that shows motive just as well as physical evidence that shows the final act in which was based upon the motive for a slam dunk.

Well you clearly know as much about the law as a member of the KKK knows about living as an African-American. The fact that you acknowledge that the defense attorney would even object in the first place is fall-down hilarious. If the law made it ok for a witness to speculate as to the thoughts of a defendant, the defense attorney wouldn't bother objecting in the first place (they don't object to things that are legal)

. What does a witness have to do with it ?? Your question spoke of the judge, the defense attorney, and me as the prosecutor right ??

 

[P@triot]

Over ruled sayeth the Judge to the defense attorney, and the prosecutor would continue building motive in the eyes of the jury with the evidence that to include a line of questioning that shows motive just as well as physical evidence that shows the final act in which was based upon the motive for a slam dunk.

Well you clearly know as much about the law as a member of the KKK knows about living as an African-American. The fact that you acknowledge that the defense attorney would even object in the first place is fall-down hilarious. If the law made it ok for a witness to speculate as to the thoughts of a defendant, the defense attorney wouldn't bother objecting in the first place (they don't object to things that are legal)

. What does a witness have to do with it ?? Your question spoke of the judge, the defense attorney, and me as the prosecutor right ??

What does the witness have to do with it?!? Are you smoking something with Snoop Dog right now? Go back and read the thread my friend. My question for you started with a witness. If there is no witness in this scenario - who is the one speculating on the thoughts of the defendant? The prosecutor, the defense attorney, and the judge sure as hell can't take the stand

 

[beagle9]

Over ruled sayeth the Judge to the defense attorney, and the prosecutor would continue building motive in the eyes of the jury with the evidence that to include a line of questioning that shows motive just as well as physical evidence that shows the final act in which was based upon the motive for a slam dunk.

Well you clearly know as much about the law as a member of the KKK knows about living as an African-American. The fact that you acknowledge that the defense attorney would even object in the first place is fall-down hilarious. If the law made it ok for a witness to speculate as to the thoughts of a defendant, the defense attorney wouldn't bother objecting in the first place (they don't object to things that are legal)

. What does a witness have to do with it ?? Your question spoke of the judge, the defense attorney, and me as the prosecutor right ??

What does the witness have to do with it?!? Are you smoking something with Snoop Dog right now? Go back and read the thread my friend. My question for you started with a witness. If there is no witness in this scenario - who is the one speculating on the thoughts of the defendant? The prosecutor, the defense attorney, and the judge sure as hell can't take the stand

. Who said that the line of questioning would be strictly based upon or would depend upon the witnesses answers being speculative at best when creating motive or intent in the minds of the jury ??? Who said the questions or answers would be based upon a mere witness assumption ??? The questions would they not be designed to have the witness give dates, times, locations, and any other actual physical evidence or testimonial evidence that woulld coincide with the crime that was committed, and also to give evidence that suggest motive in which can be backed up by dates, times, paper trails, e-mails, direct knowledge of the person through a long term friendship, partnership etc. ????? The task is it not to paint a picture for the jury in which will either decide such things as to be compelling enough even though gray areas might still exist or might not exist in their minds once the case is completed ??? The whole process is based upon physical & written and/or spoken testimony in which paints a full picture for the jury to then decide the case as based upon all these things combined right ??? Rulings have been given by juries that include motive as based upon many factors involved (even spoken testimony that is backed up by more than one witness being called to the stand) right ??? Doesn't a jury speculate themselves sometimes, and especially when given cases that are slim on physical evidence, but yet are high on testimony in which may compell the jury to determine possible intent and/or motive on the accused who may have been the most likely candidate to have committed the crime in the eyes of the jury ??? Isn't there lawyers who have said that all they have to do is be compelling enough, and the jury might just buy it ??? What is the word for it ???

 

[beagle9]

Over ruled sayeth the Judge to the defense attorney, and the prosecutor would continue building motive in the eyes of the jury with the evidence that to include a line of questioning that shows motive just as well as physical evidence that shows the final act in which was based upon the motive for a slam dunk.

Well you clearly know as much about the law as a member of the KKK knows about living as an African-American. The fact that you acknowledge that the defense attorney would even object in the first place is fall-down hilarious. If the law made it ok for a witness to speculate as to the thoughts of a defendant, the defense attorney wouldn't bother objecting in the first place (they don't object to things that are legal)

. What does a witness have to do with it ?? Your question spoke of the judge, the defense attorney, and me as the prosecutor right ??

What does the witness have to do with it?!? Are you smoking something with Snoop Dog right now? Go back and read the thread my friend. My question for you started with a witness. If there is no witness in this scenario - who is the one speculating on the thoughts of the defendant? The prosecutor, the defense attorney, and the judge sure as hell can't take the stand

You started with a witness, but now your saying what if there was no witness ???? No witness, then your right on the motive or intent being absent in a case as based upon a witness testimony... How could the lawyer prove motive or intent yes, but would a lawyer bring a civil rights case or could he or she get an indictment based upon investigators findings without a witness pulled if there is no witness or witnesses in a case ?? Would be tough, but is there precedent for such a thing already ?? Can an investigator show through their findings intent and motive, and therefore the investigators themselves are the witness for the prosecution upon taking the stand ??

 

[owebo]

Everything about the supposed "hate crime" laws are illegal and unconstitutional. For starters, it's a form of double-jeopardy. It's already illegal to assault someone. Charging them with the assault and a "hate crime" on top of that (or in addition to that to make the penalties for the crime harsher) is absurd. The same goes with murder, rape, etc.

Second, and much more importantly, it violates every basic law we have. Short of a confession, there is absolutely no possible way to prove the mindset of the accused. If the prosecutor were to - in a court of law - ask a witness if the accused committed the crime because they were racist/homophobic/etc., any competent defense attorney would object on the grounds of speculation. Nobody could possibly know what was in the mind of the accused. And any competent judge would sustain the objection. Even if the accused were a devout member of the KKK and killed a black person, nobody could possibly know with any level of certainty that the murder was committed due to the color of the victim. It could have been out of rage from confrontation. It could have been a hired hit by the wife of the victim. It could have been out of a perceived threat by the victim to the accused.

And yet that's exactly what these idiotic hate crime laws do - they assume what was in the mind of the accused and introduce it as "fact" in their arguments. Now that the party of logic and reason is in control again, we need to start repealing these idiotic laws. All minorities are already protected by the same laws that protect any other class of citizen.

Our survival as a free society depends upon our doing just that....

 

[Norman]

Everything about the supposed "hate crime" laws are illegal and unconstitutional. For starters, it's a form of double-jeopardy. It's already illegal to assault someone. Charging them with the assault and a "hate crime" on top of that (or in addition to that to make the penalties for the crime harsher) is absurd. The same goes with murder, rape, etc.

Second, and much more importantly, it violates every basic law we have. Short of a confession, there is absolutely no possible way to prove the mindset of the accused. If the prosecutor were to - in a court of law - ask a witness if the accused committed the crime because they were racist/homophobic/etc., any competent defense attorney would object on the grounds of speculation. Nobody could possibly know what was in the mind of the accused. And any competent judge would sustain the objection. Even if the accused were a devout member of the KKK and killed a black person, nobody could possibly know with any level of certainty that the murder was committed due to the color of the victim. It could have been out of rage from confrontation. It could have been a hired hit by the wife of the victim. It could have been out of a perceived threat by the victim to the accused.

And yet that's exactly what these idiotic hate crime laws do - they assume what was in the mind of the accused and introduce it as "fact" in their arguments. Now that the party of logic and reason is in control again, we need to start repealing these idiotic laws. All minorities are already protected by the same laws that protect any other class of citizen.

Well, I think the mindset can in fact be proven... but is it really better if a racist commits a crime because of racism, or if a other person commits one because he happens to think his neighbor is a god damn mother fucker?

Hate speech is even more ridiculous than hate crimes.