Zimmerman may be charged with a hate crime

[Katzndogz]

I am a Republican but not a far righties. katzndogz is a vicious bigot, yeah: always has been. If he were confronted by some of his bogies, he would wet his pants and run away. Pathetic.

How strongly would you stand by your statement before you admit you are an outright liar?

 

[George Costanza]

Translation, por favor.

I despise the Orwellian "Thought Police" definition of 'hate crimes'.

Why should a white dude get a harsher sentence for killing a black guy than if that same white guy was to invade my Granny's home and kill her?
(we can transpose the words 'white' and 'black' if it makes anybody uncomfortable)

Why should anyone get a harsher sentence for killing another person because the other person belongs to a class of people which the killer deems inferior to him? Because people who kill for that reason are assholes, that's why. It's one thing to kill another person when he has been banging your wife, because he cheated you out of money or some such. If there is such a thing as a "normal" motive for killing, those are examples of "normal" motives.

When the killing is racially motivated, however, the legislature has (quite properly) decided that harsher punishment is required - largely in an effort to discourage the commission of crimes (not necessarily limited to criminal homicide) against certain members of society who have, historically, been the victims of crimes committed against them merely because they are who they are.

Hate crimes are not "thought crimes," as those who are opposed to them like to characterize them. Hate crimes are thought combined with action crimes. There is a huge difference. True "thought crimes" do not involve action - only thought. You can think as many bigotted thougts as you want to, and nothing will happen to you. It is only when you ACT on those thoughts in the form committing a crime against the object of your bigotry, that you can be punished for a hate crime.

The argument that hate crime laws improperly increase punishement for crimes which already have sufficient punishment and, as such, all that hate crime legislation does is punish "thought," SOUNDS logical, but it isn't. The best analogy I know of (and one that I have yet to have anyone on this, or any other, board sufficiently address) is the different level of punishmebnt involved in manslaughter, second degree, first degree and capital murder. In all four cases, a victim is dead. Yet, the defendant faces potential punishments ranging from as little as 3 years in prison, to 15-to-life, 25-to-life or the death penalty, depending entirely on what his "thoughts" were (i.e., his motive) in the commission of the crime.

Folks who are opposed to hate crime legislation have no problem whatsoever with the varying punishments available for varying degrees of criminal homicde, yet they scream to high heaven over exactly the same rationale for varying the punishment when a hate crime is involved.

 

[Katzndogz]

Hate crime statutes started out as an enhancement to an underlying crime. Like California's use a gun go to jail law which imposes ten years if a firearm is used in commission of a crime. Hate crmes were not intended to be stand alone crimes. For instance, if someone is accused of murder and acquitted, there is (or should be) no underlying crime to enhance.

It raises the question of whether a stand alone hate crime is committed by mere profiling a potential threat. If I see a young black man approaching me wearing a hoodie on a warm day, with the hood pulled down low over his face and "profile" him as a threat do I break hate crime laws against profiling if I go into the nearest store or cross the street? Have i profiled them? Absolutely. Did I change my actions and behavior based on my profile? Absolutely. Is this a hate crime? Only if hate crimes no longer require an underlying crime.

 

[The Rabbi]

Hate crime statutes started out as an enhancement to an underlying crime. Like California's use a gun go to jail law which imposes ten years if a firearm is used in commission of a crime. Hate crmes were not intended to be stand alone crimes. For instance, if someone is accused of murder and acquitted, there is (or should be) no underlying crime to enhance.

It raises the question of whether a stand alone hate crime is committed by mere profiling a potential threat. If I see a young black man approaching me wearing a hoodie on a warm day, with the hood pulled down low over his face and "profile" him as a threat do I break hate crime laws against profiling if I go into the nearest store or cross the street? Have i profiled them? Absolutely. Did I change my actions and behavior based on my profile? Absolutely. Is this a hate crime? Only if hate crimes no longer require an underlying crime.

Next question is, Is it wrong to "profile" someone?
No. Everyone does it all the time. The faux-outrage over "profiling" is a leftist thing.

 

[Katzndogz]

When we get to the point where profiling is a hate crime in and of itself and does not require any other criminal activity to complete the crime you know we are going to be in some serious trouble.

 

[MikeK]

[...]

The best analogy I know of (and one that I have yet to have anyone on this, or any other, board sufficiently address) is the different level of punishmebnt involved in manslaughter, second degree, first degree and capital murder. In all four cases, a victim is dead. Yet, the defendant faces potential punishments ranging from as little as 3 years in prison, to 15-to-life, 25-to-life or the death penalty, depending entirely on what his "thoughts" were (i.e., his motive) in the commission of the crime.

[...]

The apparent flaw in that reasoning is the fact that the thought process which motivated a homicide is determined after consideration of all evidence, whereas the charge of "hate crime" presumes the thought process in advance of any deliberation. Thus one is charged with a thought crime.

 

[High_Gravity]

Hate crime statutes started out as an enhancement to an underlying crime. Like California's use a gun go to jail law which imposes ten years if a firearm is used in commission of a crime. Hate crmes were not intended to be stand alone crimes. For instance, if someone is accused of murder and acquitted, there is (or should be) no underlying crime to enhance.

It raises the question of whether a stand alone hate crime is committed by mere profiling a potential threat. If I see a young black man approaching me wearing a hoodie on a warm day, with the hood pulled down low over his face and "profile" him as a threat do I break hate crime laws against profiling if I go into the nearest store or cross the street? Have i profiled them? Absolutely. Did I change my actions and behavior based on my profile? Absolutely. Is this a hate crime? Only if hate crimes no longer require an underlying crime.

Big difference between avoiding someone and killing someone Katz.

 

[Bigfoot]

Hate crime statutes started out as an enhancement to an underlying crime. Like California's use a gun go to jail law which imposes ten years if a firearm is used in commission of a crime. Hate crmes were not intended to be stand alone crimes. For instance, if someone is accused of murder and acquitted, there is (or should be) no underlying crime to enhance.

It raises the question of whether a stand alone hate crime is committed by mere profiling a potential threat. If I see a young black man approaching me wearing a hoodie on a warm day, with the hood pulled down low over his face and "profile" him as a threat do I break hate crime laws against profiling if I go into the nearest store or cross the street? Have i profiled them? Absolutely. Did I change my actions and behavior based on my profile? Absolutely. Is this a hate crime? Only if hate crimes no longer require an underlying crime.

Next question is, Is it wrong to "profile" someone?
No. Everyone does it all the time. The faux-outrage over "profiling" is a leftist thing.

You Sir speak the truth on that. Well done.

 

[Ariux]

Next question is, Is it wrong to "profile" someone?
No. Everyone does it all the time. The faux-outrage over "profiling" is a leftist thing.

Liberals do that shit all the time, where they try to put people on the defense for being perfectly reasonable.

SO THE **** WHAT IF ZIMMERMAN PROFILED TRAYVON!!!!!!!!!! If he didn't, he was stupid. Trayvon fit the racial profile of those who had been burglarizing the neighborhood.

Zimmerman didn't call police simply because Trayvon was black. It appears that Zimmerman didn't know what race Trayvon was until after calling the police! Even if he knew the race, Zimmerman called police because of a number of factors combined, specifically Trayvon's BEHAVIOR.

Racist shitheads (aka Liberals) want to make the jump from racial profiling to racial motivation for the shooting. Trayvon wasn't shot because he was profiled, he was shot because he assaulted Mr. Zimmerman.

 

[BDBoop]

The Rabbi now projects his own inability to produce substantive objective evidence on to me.

Give it a try, son. We will guide you.

You are known as "Joke Starkey" on this site for a reason.

We probably shouldn't discuss who you are known as.

 

[theHawk]

FBI may charge George Zimmerman with hate crime | www.wftv.com

SANFORD, Fla. — WFTV has learned charges against George Zimmerman could be getting more serious.

State prosecutors said Zimmerman, a neighborhood watchman, profiled and stalked 17-year-old Trayvon Martin before killing him, so the FBI is now looking into charging him with a hate crime.

/snip

But if Zimmerman is charged and found guilty of a federal hate crime involving murder, he could face the death penalty.

I honestly don't know how I feel about this.

Good to know the Hussein has his Thought Police all over this. It's so comforting knowing they are weeding out anyone who just thinks of a racist thought in their head, even if they are just defending themselves against an attacker.

 

[George Costanza]

Hate crime statutes started out as an enhancement to an underlying crime. Like California's use a gun go to jail law which imposes ten years if a firearm is used in commission of a crime. Hate crmes were not intended to be stand alone crimes. For instance, if someone is accused of murder and acquitted, there is (or should be) no underlying crime to enhance.

It raises the question of whether a stand alone hate crime is committed by mere profiling a potential threat. If I see a young black man approaching me wearing a hoodie on a warm day, with the hood pulled down low over his face and "profile" him as a threat do I break hate crime laws against profiling if I go into the nearest store or cross the street? Have i profiled them? Absolutely. Did I change my actions and behavior based on my profile? Absolutely. Is this a hate crime? Only if hate crimes no longer require an underlying crime.

To my knowledge, there is no such thing as a stand alone hate crime. The California statute defines a hate crime as: "A criminal act committed in whole or in part because of one or more of the following actual or perceived characteristics of the victim: Disability, Gender, Nationality, Race or ethnicity, Religion, Sexual orientation, Association with a person or group with one or more of these actual or perceived characteristics."

Not the requirement of "a criminal act committed" in whole or in part because of the listed characteristics of the victim. In other words, SOME CRIME (independent of the motivational reason for committing it) must be committed before hate crime laws swing into effect.

If you are aware of a true, stand alone hate crime, I would like to see the wording of the statute. It is hard for me to imagine such a situation.

 

[George Costanza]

[...]

The best analogy I know of (and one that I have yet to have anyone on this, or any other, board sufficiently address) is the different level of punishmebnt involved in manslaughter, second degree, first degree and capital murder. In all four cases, a victim is dead. Yet, the defendant faces potential punishments ranging from as little as 3 years in prison, to 15-to-life, 25-to-life or the death penalty, depending entirely on what his "thoughts" were (i.e., his motive) in the commission of the crime.

[...]

The apparent flaw in that reasoning is the fact that the thought process which motivated a homicide is determined after consideration of all evidence, whereas the charge of "hate crime" presumes the thought process in advance of any deliberation. Thus one is charged with a thought crime.

Your logic is flawed here, Mike. There is no difference at all between either of the two cases - homicide or hate crime. In both cases, the intent of the actor is determined by the same method - inferring intent based on his actions, statements or any other evidence which may shed light on his intent in committing the crime. And, in both cases, that determination is not made until the case is being tried in court - long after the actual event. And, in both cases, the determination ultimately made involves intent prior to and during the act - whether the act is homicide or hate crime.

To compare a statement that "the intent motivating a homicide is determined after consideration of all the evidence," with a statement that "the charge of 'hate crime' presumes the thought process in advance of any deliberation," is a non sequitur and logically incorrect. You are not comparing two, similar aspects of the two different situations. Determination after the event is not the same thing as assuming something prior to deliberation. You might as well say something like, Hitting a home run in baseball depends on how easy the pitch was, whereas, scoring a goal in hocky can contribute to a hat trick. Makes no sense. Neither does your comparison.

 

[George Costanza]

When we get to the point where profiling is a hate crime in and of itself and does not require any other criminal activity to complete the crime you know we are going to be in some serious trouble.

Yup - I totally agree with that one. While I abhor bigotry, I abhor invasions of personal freedom more. Everyone should be free to think like an asshole as much as they like - so long as they don't act on it.

 

[Katzndogz]

Hate crime statutes started out as an enhancement to an underlying crime. Like California's use a gun go to jail law which imposes ten years if a firearm is used in commission of a crime. Hate crmes were not intended to be stand alone crimes. For instance, if someone is accused of murder and acquitted, there is (or should be) no underlying crime to enhance.

It raises the question of whether a stand alone hate crime is committed by mere profiling a potential threat. If I see a young black man approaching me wearing a hoodie on a warm day, with the hood pulled down low over his face and "profile" him as a threat do I break hate crime laws against profiling if I go into the nearest store or cross the street? Have i profiled them? Absolutely. Did I change my actions and behavior based on my profile? Absolutely. Is this a hate crime? Only if hate crimes no longer require an underlying crime.

Big difference between avoiding someone and killing someone Katz.

That wasn't my point though. My point was a hate "crime" is or should be an enhancement to a committed crime and should never be able to stand on its own.

 

[High_Gravity]

Hate crime statutes started out as an enhancement to an underlying crime. Like California's use a gun go to jail law which imposes ten years if a firearm is used in commission of a crime. Hate crmes were not intended to be stand alone crimes. For instance, if someone is accused of murder and acquitted, there is (or should be) no underlying crime to enhance.

It raises the question of whether a stand alone hate crime is committed by mere profiling a potential threat. If I see a young black man approaching me wearing a hoodie on a warm day, with the hood pulled down low over his face and "profile" him as a threat do I break hate crime laws against profiling if I go into the nearest store or cross the street? Have i profiled them? Absolutely. Did I change my actions and behavior based on my profile? Absolutely. Is this a hate crime? Only if hate crimes no longer require an underlying crime.

Big difference between avoiding someone and killing someone Katz.

That wasn't my point though. My point was a hate "crime" is or should be an enhancement to a committed crime and should never be able to stand on its own.

Isn't that what a hate crime is already?

 

[Katzndogz]

Big difference between avoiding someone and killing someone Katz.

That wasn't my point though. My point was a hate "crime" is or should be an enhancement to a committed crime and should never be able to stand on its own.

Isn't that what a hate crime is already?

Get back to me on that if Zimmerman is acquitted in Florida and arrested for violations of federal hate crime statutes.

 

[Ariux]

Not the requirement of "a criminal act committed" in whole or in part because of the listed characteristics of the victim. In other words, SOME CRIME (independent of the motivational reason for committing it) must be committed before hate crime laws swing into effect.

Yet, unless the media concedes that the Zimmerman trial is a complete embarrassment to the Prosecution, it's likely that Zimmerman will face federal hate-crime charges after being acquitted in court. The jurors will leave the courtroom saying Zimmerman should never have been charged in the first place, let alone doubly jeopardized under thought-crime charges by Obama/Holder.

Afros and civilization are mutually exclusive.

 

[George Costanza]

Big difference between avoiding someone and killing someone Katz.

That wasn't my point though. My point was a hate "crime" is or should be an enhancement to a committed crime and should never be able to stand on its own.

Isn't that what a hate crime is already?

Yes.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Hate crimes are not "thought crimes," as those who are opposed to them like to characterize them. Hate crimes are thought combined with action crimes. There is a huge difference. True "thought crimes" do not involve action - only thought. You can think as many bigotted thougts as you want to, and nothing will happen to you. It is only when you ACT on those thoughts in the form committing a crime against the object of your bigotry, that you can be punished for a hate crime.

Correct. The enhanced sentencing is predicated on action, not thought. One is indeed free to be an ignorant racist to his heart’s content, provided he take no action on that hate and ignorance. See: Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992).