Are "Hate Crime" Laws Constitutional?

[SwimExpert]

No, that was self-defense and Zimmerman had the injuries to prove it. Murder is when you make it your objective to kill somebody.

Which goes into identifying motives, emotions, and thoughts of the accused.

No, it doesn't. If a person is attacked, they are within their legal rights to use deadly force. It doesn't matter what they were thinking at the time.

False!

Tell you what, I'll give you a shot at this. Ray, I'd like to hire you as my lawyer. Let me tell you what happened:

This guy named Larry broke into my house. When he saw me swung his crowbar at me and hit me in the arm. I happened to have my pistol on me, so I quickly ducked around the dining room table and pointed it straight at him. That seemed to turn the tides. All of a sudden Larry froze and became afraid. He dropped the crowbar and begged me not to shoot, saying that he had been on hard times and was trying to make money to support his family. "Please don't kill me, I'll leave right now. Or call the police if you want and they can arrest me. Just please don't kill me." I told Larry to leave, and he slowly backed up in compliance toward the open door. Just before he got to the door I told him to stop, which he did. And just for shits and giggles, I shot him five times in the chest, killing him.

Here's your challenge Ray....without invoking what my motivations, thoughts, or emotions may have been, make the case for whether or not this was self defense. Prove that I either shot him in cold blood, or that I was defending myself.

It all depends on what you tell the police.

If you are honest about the entire situation, you will be charged with at least manslaughter because you admitted to the police that your life was not in danger. If your life is not in danger, you cannot be acting out of self-defense. Of course that varies state to state, but I'm just generalizing here.

Who said anything about admitting or not admitting to police? That's not the point. Make a case based on the facts of the situation, without appealing to my motivations, thoughts, emotions, etc.

Of course, you cannot. Nor should our justice system be prohibited from doing so. These are the very things that strike at the difference between a cold blooded murderer and an innocent person.

 

[SwimExpert]

Once again this has already been debunked!

There is a difference between debunking something, and uneducated fools like you denying reality.

Being Jewish is about community and nothing else

Now you're contradicting yourself. You said it was a religion. Now you're saying otherwise.

the same exact arguments can be made for any religion including Christians and Muslims.

False. Christianity was for all intents and purposes a drastic reformation of Judaism, and one that summarily rejected the inherent exclusivity of Jewish law and tradition.

See even the far left narratives claims that being Muslim is a race!

And? Do you have a point, other than trying to distract with red herrings?

Yes being Jewish is a religion and not a "race" or "ethnicity" unless you want to call any community a race or ethnic group!

A community of a common ethnic origin certainly qualifies as an ethnicity.

So now being from the hood is an "ethnic" group!

I almost didn't respond because this is stupid even by your standards. But it's worth noting that like many uneducated slobs you seem to be confusing geography with ethnicity.

What I find amazing is that people like you are so in love with your that you find it so impossible to be presented with information on a subject that you don't know anything about in the first place and say "Oh interesting, I've learned something new." Why this should be so earth shattering for you I can't understand. If anything, it ought to clear up alot of things that would otherwise seem odd. For example, why is it that so many Jews have the same kinds of common features that would be consistent with a distinct race? Why are Jews called Semitic when Semitic is an ethno-linguistic category? Why does the bible talk so much about genealogy of important Jewish figures? Why were there tribes of Jews? Why was it so hard for Jews to hide during the Holocaust? Why wasn't conversion out of Judaism an option to save one's self in Nazi Germany?

See when faced with reality they have to resort to 1940's Germany!

I win!

Using Hitler to make your case of Jews being a race, just nullified any argument you have made!

So that would be NO that being Jewish is a "race" and/or "ethnic" group!

So making relevant points against your argument means that I lose and you win. Man, I wish I could live in the Matrix like you. I'd be eating steak dinners every night and living the Charlie Sheen life, just without the HIV.

No making the case that Hitler was a "racist" because he did not like Jews automatically killed any argument that you could make!

Bullock wrote that, "once the war was over, [Hitler] promised himself, he would root out and destroy the influence of the Christian Churches".

So based on your logic being displayed we can also claim that Christianity is also a "race" and/or "ethnic" group since Hitler wanted it destroyed!

That's a whole community of straw men right there. One might even say you've founded a straw man race.

 

[Baron]

For lefts anything is 'hate crime' if it against their devilish agenda.

 

[Kosh]

Once again this has already been debunked!

There is a difference between debunking something, and uneducated fools like you denying reality.

Being Jewish is about community and nothing else

Now you're contradicting yourself. You said it was a religion. Now you're saying otherwise.

the same exact arguments can be made for any religion including Christians and Muslims.

False. Christianity was for all intents and purposes a drastic reformation of Judaism, and one that summarily rejected the inherent exclusivity of Jewish law and tradition.

See even the far left narratives claims that being Muslim is a race!

And? Do you have a point, other than trying to distract with red herrings?

Yes being Jewish is a religion and not a "race" or "ethnicity" unless you want to call any community a race or ethnic group!

A community of a common ethnic origin certainly qualifies as an ethnicity.

So now being from the hood is an "ethnic" group!

I almost didn't respond because this is stupid even by your standards. But it's worth noting that like many uneducated slobs you seem to be confusing geography with ethnicity.

What I find amazing is that people like you are so in love with your that you find it so impossible to be presented with information on a subject that you don't know anything about in the first place and say "Oh interesting, I've learned something new." Why this should be so earth shattering for you I can't understand. If anything, it ought to clear up alot of things that would otherwise seem odd. For example, why is it that so many Jews have the same kinds of common features that would be consistent with a distinct race? Why are Jews called Semitic when Semitic is an ethno-linguistic category? Why does the bible talk so much about genealogy of important Jewish figures? Why were there tribes of Jews? Why was it so hard for Jews to hide during the Holocaust? Why wasn't conversion out of Judaism an option to save one's self in Nazi Germany?

See when faced with reality they have to resort to 1940's Germany!

I win!

Using Hitler to make your case of Jews being a race, just nullified any argument you have made!

So that would be NO that being Jewish is a "race" and/or "ethnic" group!

So making relevant points against your argument means that I lose and you win. Man, I wish I could live in the Matrix like you. I'd be eating steak dinners every night and living the Charlie Sheen life, just without the HIV.

No making the case that Hitler was a "racist" because he did not like Jews automatically killed any argument that you could make!

Bullock wrote that, "once the war was over, [Hitler] promised himself, he would root out and destroy the influence of the Christian Churches".

So based on your logic being displayed we can also claim that Christianity is also a "race" and/or "ethnic" group since Hitler wanted it destroyed!

That's a whole community of straw men right there. One might even say you've founded a straw man race.

No the far left did that! But then again if I can find where Hitler wanted it destroyed, I could claim it as a "race"..

 

[SwimExpert]

No, it's an action. If I kill somebody with the full intent of killing them, that justifies murder. If I accidentally kill somebody let's say in a fist fight, that's manslaughter. If I kill somebody that's attacking me, that's self-defense.

In all three cases, I caused a death, but the charge is based on why I caused the death, not what I was thinking when I caused the death.

Intent speaks to a person's inner thoughts and motivations. The very examples you are citing are examples of how our system of crime and punishment looks into a person's thoughts and feelings to judge the criminality of their actions.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, that was self-defense and Zimmerman had the injuries to prove it. Murder is when you make it your objective to kill somebody.

Which goes into identifying motives, emotions, and thoughts of the accused.

No, it doesn't. If a person is attacked, they are within their legal rights to use deadly force. It doesn't matter what they were thinking at the time.

False!

Tell you what, I'll give you a shot at this. Ray, I'd like to hire you as my lawyer. Let me tell you what happened:

This guy named Larry broke into my house. When he saw me swung his crowbar at me and hit me in the arm. I happened to have my pistol on me, so I quickly ducked around the dining room table and pointed it straight at him. That seemed to turn the tides. All of a sudden Larry froze and became afraid. He dropped the crowbar and begged me not to shoot, saying that he had been on hard times and was trying to make money to support his family. "Please don't kill me, I'll leave right now. Or call the police if you want and they can arrest me. Just please don't kill me." I told Larry to leave, and he slowly backed up in compliance toward the open door. Just before he got to the door I told him to stop, which he did. And just for shits and giggles, I shot him five times in the chest, killing him.

Here's your challenge Ray....without invoking what my motivations, thoughts, or emotions may have been, make the case for whether or not this was self defense. Prove that I either shot him in cold blood, or that I was defending myself.

It all depends on what you tell the police.

If you are honest about the entire situation, you will be charged with at least manslaughter because you admitted to the police that your life was not in danger. If your life is not in danger, you cannot be acting out of self-defense. Of course that varies state to state, but I'm just generalizing here.

Who said anything about admitting or not admitting to police? That's not the point. Make a case based on the facts of the situation, without appealing to my motivations, thoughts, emotions, etc.

Of course, you cannot. Nor should our justice system be prohibited from doing so. These are the very things that strike at the difference between a cold blooded murderer and an innocent person.

Of course what you tell the police makes all the difference in the world. If you were defending yourself and investigations support your story, you get to sleep in your own bed that night. If you killed somebody without justification, you get charged for murder.

The police come and ask you what happened--not what you were thinking, because what you were thinking had nothing to do with your actions. You either legally murdered somebody or you didn't.

 

[MaryL]

During the Watergate hearings, someone said you could indict a ham sandwich. Same thing applies, ANYTHING is "Racism". Because, if popular sentiment condones/condemns something, it's OK. Salem witch trials condemn someone to death for witchcraft, who's going to argue?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, it's an action. If I kill somebody with the full intent of killing them, that justifies murder. If I accidentally kill somebody let's say in a fist fight, that's manslaughter. If I kill somebody that's attacking me, that's self-defense.

In all three cases, I caused a death, but the charge is based on why I caused the death, not what I was thinking when I caused the death.

Intent speaks to a person's inner thoughts and motivations. The very examples you are citing are examples of how our system of crime and punishment looks into a person's thoughts and feelings to judge the criminality of their actions.

No they don't. What they are looking into is the reason you caused the death, not how you felt about causing the death.

 

[SwimExpert]

Of course what you tell the police makes all the difference in the world. If you were defending yourself and investigations support your story, you get to sleep in your own bed that night. If you killed somebody without justification, you get charged for murder.

The police come and ask you what happened--not what you were thinking, because what you were thinking had nothing to do with your actions. You either legally murdered somebody or you didn't.

So, the police simply record your statement and that's the end of it? Come on!

I don't have to say anything to the police. I can refuse to answer questions. In any event, you're clearly trying to evade the point, and doing a poor job of it. You know as well as I do that police don't much care for the "why." They simply collect the facts. The "why" is for the courts to deal with.

What happened is that I shot him. He broke in and I shot him. Why I shot him is between me and the courts. The good news in all of this is that even though you deny on on its face that what I was thinking matters, you continually affirm that what I was thinking makes the difference between capital murder and innocence. If I thought my life was in danger, I'm an innocent man. If I thought it was a good opportunity for target practice, I'm guilty.

 

[SwimExpert]

No, it's an action. If I kill somebody with the full intent of killing them, that justifies murder. If I accidentally kill somebody let's say in a fist fight, that's manslaughter. If I kill somebody that's attacking me, that's self-defense.

In all three cases, I caused a death, but the charge is based on why I caused the death, not what I was thinking when I caused the death.

Intent speaks to a person's inner thoughts and motivations. The very examples you are citing are examples of how our system of crime and punishment looks into a person's thoughts and feelings to judge the criminality of their actions.

No they don't. What they are looking into is the reason you caused the death, not how you felt about causing the death.

And how is that not a question of what I was thinking?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, it's an action. If I kill somebody with the full intent of killing them, that justifies murder. If I accidentally kill somebody let's say in a fist fight, that's manslaughter. If I kill somebody that's attacking me, that's self-defense.

In all three cases, I caused a death, but the charge is based on why I caused the death, not what I was thinking when I caused the death.

Intent speaks to a person's inner thoughts and motivations. The very examples you are citing are examples of how our system of crime and punishment looks into a person's thoughts and feelings to judge the criminality of their actions.

No they don't. What they are looking into is the reason you caused the death, not how you felt about causing the death.

And how is that not a question of what I was thinking?

Because you can be thinking "I really want to kill this guy" while at the same time, defending yourself from an attack. It doesn't matter what you were thinking, it matters what you did and evidence to back up your story.

 

[sealybobo]

I think we're all getting caught up on semantics here. We all know that some crimes are more heinous than others and so do you mean something a hate crime is just pointing out that the crime is a little more heinous than just a random act of violence. It's a way of adding a few years to somebody's sentence you shouldn't be let out of jail anytime soon

Hate Crimes places greater value on one group of people over another. That's not the way our government is supposed to look at citizens.

I have often wondered why killing a cop is worse than killing a random citizen.

 

[ChrisL]

I think we're all getting caught up on semantics here. We all know that some crimes are more heinous than others and so do you mean something a hate crime is just pointing out that the crime is a little more heinous than just a random act of violence. It's a way of adding a few years to somebody's sentence you shouldn't be let out of jail anytime soon

Hate Crimes places greater value on one group of people over another. That's not the way our government is supposed to look at citizens.

I have often wondered why killing a cop is worse than killing a random citizen.

Because it shows lack of respect for authority of the government?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Of course what you tell the police makes all the difference in the world. If you were defending yourself and investigations support your story, you get to sleep in your own bed that night. If you killed somebody without justification, you get charged for murder.

The police come and ask you what happened--not what you were thinking, because what you were thinking had nothing to do with your actions. You either legally murdered somebody or you didn't.

So, the police simply record your statement and that's the end of it? Come on!

I don't have to say anything to the police. I can refuse to answer questions. In any event, you're clearly trying to evade the point, and doing a poor job of it. You know as well as I do that police don't much care for the "why." They simply collect the facts. The "why" is for the courts to deal with.

What happened is that I shot him. He broke in and I shot him. Why I shot him is between me and the courts. The good news in all of this is that even though you deny on on its face that what I was thinking matters, you continually affirm that what I was thinking makes the difference between capital murder and innocence. If I thought my life was in danger, I'm an innocent man. If I thought it was a good opportunity for target practice, I'm guilty.

No, because if you thought that your life was on the line, and investigations show it wasn't, your thoughts about what you were doing doesn't matter, it's what you did that matters.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I think we're all getting caught up on semantics here. We all know that some crimes are more heinous than others and so do you mean something a hate crime is just pointing out that the crime is a little more heinous than just a random act of violence. It's a way of adding a few years to somebody's sentence you shouldn't be let out of jail anytime soon

Hate Crimes places greater value on one group of people over another. That's not the way our government is supposed to look at citizens.

I have often wondered why killing a cop is worse than killing a random citizen.

The police represent the people. They are the law.

 

[sealybobo]

I think we're all getting caught up on semantics here. We all know that some crimes are more heinous than others and so do you mean something a hate crime is just pointing out that the crime is a little more heinous than just a random act of violence. It's a way of adding a few years to somebody's sentence you shouldn't be let out of jail anytime soon

Hate Crimes places greater value on one group of people over another. That's not the way our government is supposed to look at citizens.

I have often wondered why killing a cop is worse than killing a random citizen.

Because it shows lack of respect for authority of the government?

I know but I use to think, "are our lives worth less"?

I get it, I'm just saying.

I get why we have hate crimes. It lets American Nazis know they'll be punished to the fullest.

Maybe you'll think twice before beating up a black guy in a mostly white bar just because you don't like blacks.

 

[jillian]

No Constitutional Authority for Federal Hate Crime Law Cato Liberty

I am of the opinion that so called "hate crime" laws are not constitutional and are racist by nature. They carry a grave danger with them as they are not evenly applied and are a creation of politicians pandering for votes. When the politicization of the law takes place it is a slippery slope to tyranny. Attorney General Eric Holder admitted that "hate crime" laws are racially biased. What does the board think?
[

hate crimes are constitution.

 

[sealybobo]

We have hate crime laws to deal with people who commit them. If it's found you beat him up because he's black Jewish or gay you'll be in big trouble.

 

[Tilly]

Umm no . The exact opposite . It's all about what people are thinking . That's what makes crime .
That's why we don't charge animals with crimes .

Holy fuck.

A dead body doesn't mean murder one death penalty .

It's the act that defines homicide, negligence or defense. No wonder you support hate crimes, you feel things instead of thinking through them.

It is not the act .

You can shoot someone dead . That's the act .

But what if

1) you shot the guy cause you walked in on him banging your wife.

2) you shot the guy while cleaning your gun

3) you shot the guy cause he was an intruder in your house.

According to you all 3 are the same . What you were thinking doesn't make a difference .

1) That's called murder
2) Negligent discharge. Not murder but Involuntary manslaughter or some such charge.
3) Self defense. Cops chuckle and roll to the next call.

Bingo ! But the difference is what the guy is thinking. Motive .

So enough of this "what people are thinking doesn't matter " nonsense .

Huh? All three were acts, not thoughts. Are you on LSD?

Sounds as though he'd like laws against thoughts.

 

[Kosh]

We have hate crime laws to deal with people who commit them. If it's found you beat him up because he's black Jewish or gay you'll be in big trouble.

Yes the protected classes of the far left and they want to punish anyone that dares to speak out against them as a "hate crime"..

Yes we know the far left hates freedom of speech!