Why do the right struggle with the concept of hate crime ?

[iamwhatiseem]

What is hate crime?

Find out how to identify the different types of hate crime and what you can do if you're a victim of hate crime.

www.met.police.uk

This is the argument -

If you are murdered then you are dead. The motivation is immaterial.

Which on the face of it is true. But incredibly simplistic and reflecting of a very limited view of the world.

Lets look at two murders and explain why it matters.

Murder 1 - Fred and Jim fall out over a business deal or a girl or a parking spot. Fred exercises his 2nd amendment right and blows Jims head off.

Murder 2 - Jim, a black guy, is walking through a "white" neighbourhood and is spotted by Fred. Fred is immediately alarmed and exercises his 2nd amendment right and blows Jims head off. Jim isnt doing anything, he is just the wrong person in the wrong place.

Which is the worse murder ?

Of course the 2nd one is the worst due to the randomness of the act. Murder 1 happened as a result of a specific set of circumstances that would be difficult to replicate. Murder 2 could happen at any time just because Fred hates black folks.

Im not sure if I can make it any simpler for you straw sucking shit kickers.

I see you are still making up your own stories and trying to pretend it is reality.

It's all a matter of "perception".

There is no perception that Tommy likes to make shit up in his own mind and attempt to convince others it is reality.

 

[Blues Man]

What is hate crime?

Find out how to identify the different types of hate crime and what you can do if you're a victim of hate crime.

www.met.police.uk

This is the argument -

If you are murdered then you are dead. The motivation is immaterial.

Which on the face of it is true. But incredibly simplistic and reflecting of a very limited view of the world.

Lets look at two murders and explain why it matters.

Murder 1 - Fred and Jim fall out over a business deal or a girl or a parking spot. Fred exercises his 2nd amendment right and blows Jims head off.

Murder 2 - Jim, a black guy, is walking through a "white" neighbourhood and is spotted by Fred. Fred is immediately alarmed and exercises his 2nd amendment right and blows Jims head off. Jim isnt doing anything, he is just the wrong person in the wrong place.

Which is the worse murder ?

Of course the 2nd one is the worst due to the randomness of the act. Murder 1 happened as a result of a specific set of circumstances that would be difficult to replicate. Murder 2 could happen at any time just because Fred hates black folks.

Im not sure if I can make it any simpler for you straw sucking shit kickers.

Hate crimes are thought crimes.

And those two hypothetical murders are equal.

One murder is not worse than another.

Perhaps someone could perceive one to be.

and that's subjective.

 

[Blues Man]

Why do the right struggle with the concept of hate crime ?

They don't struggle with the concept, they just don't care about the concept. Same thing with Affirmative Action...they get it. They just don't care.

You say the right doesn't care about Affirmative Action ? Whaaaat ????????

Yes. The right understands that minorities have been underrepresented in the U.S. since day 1 and that Affirmative Action is a small attempt to help with that fact. They just don't care

I started this thread because I could see that a lot of right wing trash struggled with the concept of "hate crime". I tried to make it as simple as possible for them, I really did. But it just flies over their heads like a lot of other basic issues.

Its like this Father Ted clip.

Hate crimes are thought crimes

That's all they are

 

[there4eyeM]

What is hate crime?

Find out how to identify the different types of hate crime and what you can do if you're a victim of hate crime.

www.met.police.uk

This is the argument -

If you are murdered then you are dead. The motivation is immaterial.

Which on the face of it is true. But incredibly simplistic and reflecting of a very limited view of the world.

Lets look at two murders and explain why it matters.

Murder 1 - Fred and Jim fall out over a business deal or a girl or a parking spot. Fred exercises his 2nd amendment right and blows Jims head off.

Murder 2 - Jim, a black guy, is walking through a "white" neighbourhood and is spotted by Fred. Fred is immediately alarmed and exercises his 2nd amendment right and blows Jims head off. Jim isnt doing anything, he is just the wrong person in the wrong place.

Which is the worse murder ?

Of course the 2nd one is the worst due to the randomness of the act. Murder 1 happened as a result of a specific set of circumstances that would be difficult to replicate. Murder 2 could happen at any time just because Fred hates black folks.

Im not sure if I can make it any simpler for you straw sucking shit kickers.

Hate crimes are thought crimes.

And those two hypothetical murders are equal.

One murder is not worse than another.

Perhaps someone could perceive one to be.

and that's subjective.

To the max!

 

[westwall]

What is hate crime?

Find out how to identify the different types of hate crime and what you can do if you're a victim of hate crime.

www.met.police.uk

This is the argument -

If you are murdered then you are dead. The motivation is immaterial.

Which on the face of it is true. But incredibly simplistic and reflecting of a very limited view of the world.

Lets look at two murders and explain why it matters.

Murder 1 - Fred and Jim fall out over a business deal or a girl or a parking spot. Fred exercises his 2nd amendment right and blows Jims head off.

Murder 2 - Jim, a black guy, is walking through a "white" neighbourhood and is spotted by Fred. Fred is immediately alarmed and exercises his 2nd amendment right and blows Jims head off. Jim isnt doing anything, he is just the wrong person in the wrong place.

Which is the worse murder ?

Of course the 2nd one is the worst due to the randomness of the act. Murder 1 happened as a result of a specific set of circumstances that would be difficult to replicate. Murder 2 could happen at any time just because Fred hates black folks.

Im not sure if I can make it any simpler for you straw sucking shit kickers.

As we know that you are an Islamic, anti-freedom shill for Communism, you of course use 2nd Amendment and firearms as your example. Perhaps we should just use a hammer for an example.
1. Attacker "A" has a hammer and has a heated argument with her coworker, friend, brother....whoever. She bashes his/her head in with the hammer.
REASON: In that moment she "HATED" the individual enough to kill him/her.
2. Attacker "B" has a hammer. When he/she sees a person that is not of the same race as him/her, he/she feels "hate," walks or runs over to the person of the other race and.....bashes his/her head in with the hammer.
REASON: He/she, fed lies for years, oddly by the very party that was the sole source of that hatred for a couple of hundred years and now tells him/her that the opposing political party is responsible for his/her victimhood. Anticipated result of lies fed to him/her, "hatred" towards anyone not of his/her race.
Summation: It doesn't matter a bit as to the cause of the attack. In either case, the bottom line was simply......hate, whether momentary or simmering for years.
And, any tool can be used to harm or kill a person.
As for firearms. More people are killed in the US by knives, blunt instruments and fists than by firearms. Sixty two percent of deaths by firearms are caused by......are you ready?......suicide. And, quite frankly taking firearms away won't change the suicide figure, only change the method.
Murder rate in Venezuela (where there is strict gun control).....drum roll.....130+ per 100,000. El Salvador: 60+ per 100,000. El Salvador: 36+ per 100,000. Belize: 37+ per 100,000. Brazil: 27+ per 100,000. South Africa: 36+ per 100,000. Switzerland: (Where per 100 people, there are an estimated 28 to 40 firearms), 0.6 per 100,000. The United States: The US was actually a quiet 4.2 per 100,000 murder rate for many years. However, when the pro-Marxist, leftist politicians stepped back and did nothing when people began looting, rioting and committing arson and deliberately told law enforcement to step down....the murder rate increased to: 16 per 100,000. Now, England/Wales does obviously beat out the US with a small 1.42% per 100,000. But, it's interesting that nearby Switzerland which compared with England, is simply awash in firearms, has a smaller number of deaths per 100,000. Evidently, England/Wales is particularly barbaric in comparison with them. Of course, we tend to keep things in perspective. The combination of England's population and Wales, amounts to about 70,000,000, whereas the population of the US is....figuring the "illegals" is close to 400,000,000. The murder rate is obviously going to be higher.
Of course, in true Socialist nations, it's really hard to determine the actual number of deaths per 100,000, as people are just whisked away and never heard from again, plus various "death squads."
Back to the topic: Hate is hate, is hate. The reason is largely irrelevant.
And, as I always say about you. You are irrelevant, as you are in England and your opinion on our freedoms don't amount to squat.

So you dont get it. Never mind mate, The adults in the room get it and thats why the civilised world has laws about this sort of thing.

No, YOU don't get it.

No surprise there, given your lack of intellect.

 

[Dadoalex]

Maybe because Blacks don't commit many hate crimes.

How many do they commit? Link?

Anecdotal. Based on a lack of such reporting from FAUX News.

Your claim was anecdotal? Cool!

Yes. Just like the right's claims to not be racist.
"Some of my best friends..."
"I work with..."
"I had one of them at my house..."
Anecdotal, but, unlike mine, not true.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Maybe because Blacks don't commit many hate crimes.

How many do they commit? Link?

Anecdotal. Based on a lack of such reporting from FAUX News.

Your claim was anecdotal? Cool!

Yes. Just like the right's claims to not be racist.
"Some of my best friends..."
"I work with..."
"I had one of them at my house..."
Anecdotal, but, unlike mine, not true.

But enough about Biden.

 

[emilynghiem]

What is hate crime?

Find out how to identify the different types of hate crime and what you can do if you're a victim of hate crime.

www.met.police.uk

This is the argument -

If you are murdered then you are dead. The motivation is immaterial.

Which on the face of it is true. But incredibly simplistic and reflecting of a very limited view of the world.

Lets look at two murders and explain why it matters.

Murder 1 - Fred and Jim fall out over a business deal or a girl or a parking spot. Fred exercises his 2nd amendment right and blows Jims head off.

Murder 2 - Jim, a black guy, is walking through a "white" neighbourhood and is spotted by Fred. Fred is immediately alarmed and exercises his 2nd amendment right and blows Jims head off. Jim isnt doing anything, he is just the wrong person in the wrong place.

Which is the worse murder ?

Of course the 2nd one is the worst due to the randomness of the act. Murder 1 happened as a result of a specific set of circumstances that would be difficult to replicate. Murder 2 could happen at any time just because Fred hates black folks.

Im not sure if I can make it any simpler for you straw sucking shit kickers.

Dear Tommy Tainant
The best explanation and arguments I ever heard against hate crime legislation came from a radical Liberal prison and police reform advocate who taught workshops on Saul Alinsky, i.e., clearly NOT rightwing.

Ray Hill opposed hate crime legislation as adding more legal burden of proof and more costs to cases and taxpayers without adding any changes to the outcome.
It just makes it harder to try to prove intent by additional conditions and process of proof.
The main benefit is paying more to lawyers and politicians to push symbolic legislation.

And Ray was as far left progressive as you could get. And equally opposed this hate crime distinction as empty but expensive symbolism that didn't change the sentencing but cost taxpayers more money to make a political statement only.

=======
PS if you want to charge someone for more than murder, then if they were harassing a person, making criminal threats, stalking or committing terrorist act, those are separate additional crimes.

Rape is a separate and additional crime.

Aggravated kidnapping and assault.

The difference Tommy Tainant is the added crimes are physical acts that can be policed by external law enforcement.

That is different from trying to prove or police the "internal hate" in someone. Govt has no jurisdiction to ban or punish how you feel personally about people, but if you act on this to do an illegal action.

Your words can be proven as illegal threats or crimes, such as threatening to kill someone by written or spoken threat.

But your thoughts and feelings are your own, not regulated by govt. You just can't act on these to violate or discriminate against rights of others.

 

[Muhammed]

What is hate crime?

Find out how to identify the different types of hate crime and what you can do if you're a victim of hate crime.

www.met.police.uk

This is the argument -

If you are murdered then you are dead. The motivation is immaterial.

Which on the face of it is true. But incredibly simplistic and reflecting of a very limited view of the world.

Lets look at two murders and explain why it matters.

Murder 1 - Fred and Jim fall out over a business deal or a girl or a parking spot. Fred exercises his 2nd amendment right and blows Jims head off.

Murder 2 - Jim, a black guy, is walking through a "white" neighbourhood and is spotted by Fred. Fred is immediately alarmed and exercises his 2nd amendment right and blows Jims head off. Jim isnt doing anything, he is just the wrong person in the wrong place.

Which is the worse murder ?

make it any simpler for you straw sucking shit kickers.

Murder 1 scenario happens all the time.

Murder 2 scenario is fiction.

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

What is hate crime?

Find out how to identify the different types of hate crime and what you can do if you're a victim of hate crime.

www.met.police.uk

This is the argument -

If you are murdered then you are dead. The motivation is immaterial.

Which on the face of it is true. But incredibly simplistic and reflecting of a very limited view of the world.

Lets look at two murders and explain why it matters.

Murder 1 - Fred and Jim fall out over a business deal or a girl or a parking spot. Fred exercises his 2nd amendment right and blows Jims head off.

Murder 2 - Jim, a black guy, is walking through a "white" neighbourhood and is spotted by Fred. Fred is immediately alarmed and exercises his 2nd amendment right and blows Jims head off. Jim isnt doing anything, he is just the wrong person in the wrong place.

Which is the worse murder ?

Of course the 2nd one is the worst due to the randomness of the act. Murder 1 happened as a result of a specific set of circumstances that would be difficult to replicate. Murder 2 could happen at any time just because Fred hates black folks.

Im not sure if I can make it any simpler for you straw sucking shit kickers.

Serious question.......since the UK is so much more ......advanced in social justice ......pfffft

If for instance I said Tommy is a fat fuckin dork that fucked his whore dog of a mother sideways...

Is that a "hate crime".?

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

It’s a flawed premise. It attempts to make one motive more morally reprehensible when murder is morally reprensible in any case.

It’s sort of like:

“Did you hear that Fred murdered someone?”

“Oh, what a shame.”

“He killed a black guy.”

“What!? String that ************ up by the balls right now!”

 

[Tommy Tainant]

200 posts on this thread and our right wing intellectuals still cant grasp a simple fact. You types are as thick as shit. There is no other explanation.

 

[Soupnazi630]

What is hate crime?

Find out how to identify the different types of hate crime and what you can do if you're a victim of hate crime.

www.met.police.uk

This is the argument -

If you are murdered then you are dead. The motivation is immaterial.

Which on the face of it is true. But incredibly simplistic and reflecting of a very limited view of the world.

Lets look at two murders and explain why it matters.

Murder 1 - Fred and Jim fall out over a business deal or a girl or a parking spot. Fred exercises his 2nd amendment right and blows Jims head off.

Murder 2 - Jim, a black guy, is walking through a "white" neighbourhood and is spotted by Fred. Fred is immediately alarmed and exercises his 2nd amendment right and blows Jims head off. Jim isnt doing anything, he is just the wrong person in the wrong place.

Which is the worse murder ?

Of course the 2nd one is the worst due to the randomness of the act. Murder 1 happened as a result of a specific set of circumstances that would be difficult to replicate. Murder 2 could happen at any time just because Fred hates black folks.

Im not sure if I can make it any simpler for you straw sucking shit kickers.

Neither is worse.

The concept of a hate crime is idiotic. Progressives like yourself are simply to stupid and uneducated to grasp the simplicity of it.

A violent crime is hateful no matter what. If I beat an elderly woman because I want to grab her purse and steal her money igt is just as bad as beating her because she is whigte and I hate white people.

Hate is strictly subjective which is why hate speech is protected and why hate crimes are foolish.

In most cases they are not even hate crimes under the legal definition such as the recent Atlanta shooting. Or for that matter the brutal murder of Matthew Shepard who had a law named after him which would never have applied to his case. He was gay but not murdered because he was gay.

 

[wamose]

Why do the right struggle with the concept of hate crime ?

They don't struggle with the concept, they just don't care about the concept. Same thing with Affirmative Action...they get it. They just don't care.

You say the right doesn't care about Affirmative Action ? Whaaaat ????????

Yes. The right understands that minorities have been underrepresented in the U.S. since day 1 and that Affirmative Action is a small attempt to help with that fact. They just don't care

I started this thread because I could see that a lot of right wing trash struggled with the concept of "hate crime". I tried to make it as simple as possible for them, I really did. But it just flies over their heads like a lot of other basic issues.

Its like this Father Ted clip.

Hate crimes are thought crimes

That's all they are

That's true. And if we were to start prosecuting thought crimes, the entire justice department, the MSM and 85% of the rest of our government would be indicted, convicted and incarcerated. As appealing as that bottom line sounds, we can't play the progressive game of 'the ends justify the means'.

 

[Blues Man]

200 posts on this thread and our right wing intellectuals still cant grasp a simple fact. You types are as thick as shit. There is no other explanation.

What you are thinking when you kill a person is irrelevant.

Murder is murder, assault is assault Those are crimes. What thoughts are going through a person's mind aren't crimes.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

200 posts on this thread and our right wing intellectuals still cant grasp a simple fact.

Fact?

Hate crime legislation is about feelings, not facts.

 

[there4eyeM]

200 posts on this thread and our right wing intellectuals still cant grasp a simple fact. You types are as thick as shit. There is no other explanation.

What "fact"?

 

[DGS49]

(1) Government has no business getting into anyone's head. Government should deal with what people DO, not what they think (or worse, FEEL!).

(2) Hate crime laws were instituted to facilitate the odious and unconstitutional phenomenon of DOUBLE JEOPARDY. If any level of government is not satisfied with the disposition of a criminal trial at a lower level, then THE EXACT SAME fact pattern can be used to prosecute a DIFFERENT CRIME.

For example, Derrick whatsisname is acquitted of killing George Floyd in state court. Goes "Scott free." But wait! The U.S. attorney indicts Derrick on CIVIL RIGHTS charges! He deprived Floyd of his right to life, "under color of law" (i.e.,, while functioning as a police officer). NEW TRIAL, NEW OFFENSE, and no "double jeopardy" problem.

It stinks.

Government has no business getting into anyone's head. ALL HATE CRIMES are also crimes under other provisions of the criminal statutes. Hate Crime laws are evil.

 

[Soupnazi630]

200 posts on this thread and our right wing intellectuals still cant grasp a simple fact. You types are as thick as shit. There is no other explanation.

You stated no fact you stated a fallacy

 

[Tommy Tainant]

(1) Government has no business getting into anyone's head. Government should deal with what people DO, not what they think (or worse, FEEL!).

(2) Hate crime laws were instituted to facilitate the odious and unconstitutional phenomenon of DOUBLE JEOPARDY. If any level of government is not satisfied with the disposition of a criminal trial at a lower level, then THE EXACT SAME fact pattern can be used to prosecute a DIFFERENT CRIME.

For example, Derrick whatsisname is acquitted of killing George Floyd in state court. Goes "Scott free." But wait! The U.S. attorney indicts Derrick on CIVIL RIGHTS charges! He deprived Floyd of his right to life, "under color of law" (i.e.,, while functioning as a police officer). NEW TRIAL, NEW OFFENSE, and no "double jeopardy" problem.

It stinks.

Government has no business getting into anyone's head. ALL HATE CRIMES are also crimes under other provisions of the criminal statutes. Hate Crime laws are evil.

You continually miss the point in spectacular fashion.