Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If I have a swastica tatoo and I kill a black is there really any doubt?The government gets to pick and choose what it is going to consider "Hate crimes." A lot of it is federal legislation. I don't like it at all. It is wrong to try to punish people MORE because of what they MAY have been thinking at the time of a murder. It is ridiculous considering you cannot read someone's mind. It's going to be nothing but "circumstantial" evidence that can never really be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt.
That couple in San Bernardino. How do you KNOW they were terrorists? How can you know what they were thinking?
How about the Boston bombers? They weren't terrorists! How do you know beyond a shadow of a doubt they were terrorists? It's not the governments job. Just convict him of pre meditated murder and move on. You can never know what was in his heart or mind.
Why does it matter if I plan out my attack on a gay or black? What if I just run into one and spontaneously kill them because I hate gays or blacks?Ask yourself if you were an anti semetic, would you think twice before beating up a guy just because he's wearing a yamaka? I would. It'd make me mad Jews were protected by such a law. Id think they were taking over the country and I'd join the kkkIs there evidence that hate crime laws act as a deterrent?Yes it does. I can only speak for me but I would think twice before picking on a black or gay just for being black or gay. Knowing I could get charged with a hate crime might make me think twice. That's the purpose.Does it work?
Nothing is fool proof
If a known about hate group beats up on a guy BECAUSE of his skin color, that is something else. However, that is certainly not the case in a lot of "hate crime" scenarios. And I also have to wonder, as others have mentioned, why is it worse for a person to murder another person because of his or her skin color than it is because they think he or she is rich? Both are scummy and I don't see one being any worse than other. The outcome is the same.
Or . . . is it worse to murder someone because you don't like the group of people as opposed to murdering someone because you personally don't like that person? How can you say one is worse than the other and/or deserving of a more harsh punishment? What does deserve harsher punishment is if the murder was planned in advance, hence capital or first-degree murder charges.
Maybe, but that's what we have judges for; to determine the sincerity of the accused.
Thank you for admitting that our court system explores the hearts and minds of perpetrators.
Yes they do, but our legislatures should not.
So you want to strip murder statutes of phrases like "malice aforethought" or "deliberately with intent to cause harm"?
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.
Because the circumstances of those other felons don't call for an additional 5 yearsIf it can be proven a criminal preys on minorities then why not punish them for that? Guy talks for years about how blacks or gays are ruining America then one day he beats up a gay or black he's never met, that should be different than if he beats up a fellow white neighbor for playing his music too loud.Can you tell me for which groups of people you'd like to see hate crime protection? someone objected to it being referred to as protection, but since you've decided, with no evidence whatsoever, that it acts as a deterrent, it's a fitting description.It's common sense. Look at how southerners and northern racists don't use the N word as freely as they did when I was growing up. How'd we get them to stop? Little social engineering going on.
And if its not a deterant for you it is for me. Trust me, being a homophobes and racist won't be tolerated in the future and incidences will be rare. You're just gonna have to trust me on this one.
And if it won't deter some it'll add to their sentence like chrisl said.
So, can you list who you believe should be afforded hate crime protection? Thanks.
That's easy: potential Democrat voters.
i think it really can't be helped that it's generally the potential rightwing voters who commit hate crimes and resent people not being able to beat up gays and lynch blacks.
Beating up the gay should get him extra time in jail. Seems to me they are different crimes even if the victims got beat up just the same.
And we aren't trying to send a message to people who prey on neighbors who play their music too loud.
That's exactly what we've been saying. You are giving added value to a group of people which is immoral and wrong. Our federal or state government should not be assigning value to people, people should all be treated the same by governments.
And again, if harsher penalties equal more deterrent, why not give that exact same protection to everybody? After all, if you get an extra five years for a felony assault, your precious little groups would still be included. Their attackers would still get that extra five years, and so would everybody else.
CORRECTION: Delivering of known SECRET and TOP SECRET classified info to someone without clearance is against the law.Ovey!Or Hillary Clinton violating federal classified data protection laws and getting away with it. No one should be above the law-----------------including your beloved Clintons.
Regurgitating bull crud again I see.....
She broke no law.
actually she did. Patreaus was found guilty of basically the same thing on a smaller scale.
Patreus was found guilty of sharing classified information with his biographer. Who he was also fucking.
At issue are "black books" — eight notebooks in which Petraeus kept highly classified information that the government says included "the identities of covert officers, war strategy, intelligence capabilities and mechanisms, diplomatic discussions, quotes and deliberative discussions from high-level National Security Council meetings, and defendant David Howell Petraeus's discussions with the President of the United States of America."
Petraeus Sentenced To 2 Years' Probation, Fine For Sharing Classified Info
The emails were merely evidence of the above.
Again, which has nothing to do with this thread.
disclosure of classified data is a crime, the circumstances of the disclosure don't lessen the crime.
will HRC be prosecuted? probably not, we all know that the Clintons are special people who are above the law.
only SECRET and TOP SECRET Classified material contains National security secrets...
Because the circumstances of those other felons don't call for an additional 5 yearsIf it can be proven a criminal preys on minorities then why not punish them for that? Guy talks for years about how blacks or gays are ruining America then one day he beats up a gay or black he's never met, that should be different than if he beats up a fellow white neighbor for playing his music too loud.Can you tell me for which groups of people you'd like to see hate crime protection? someone objected to it being referred to as protection, but since you've decided, with no evidence whatsoever, that it acts as a deterrent, it's a fitting description.
So, can you list who you believe should be afforded hate crime protection? Thanks.
That's easy: potential Democrat voters.
i think it really can't be helped that it's generally the potential rightwing voters who commit hate crimes and resent people not being able to beat up gays and lynch blacks.
Beating up the gay should get him extra time in jail. Seems to me they are different crimes even if the victims got beat up just the same.
And we aren't trying to send a message to people who prey on neighbors who play their music too loud.
That's exactly what we've been saying. You are giving added value to a group of people which is immoral and wrong. Our federal or state government should not be assigning value to people, people should all be treated the same by governments.
And again, if harsher penalties equal more deterrent, why not give that exact same protection to everybody? After all, if you get an extra five years for a felony assault, your precious little groups would still be included. Their attackers would still get that extra five years, and so would everybody else.
Because the circumstances of those other felons don't call for an additional 5 yearsIf it can be proven a criminal preys on minorities then why not punish them for that? Guy talks for years about how blacks or gays are ruining America then one day he beats up a gay or black he's never met, that should be different than if he beats up a fellow white neighbor for playing his music too loud.Can you tell me for which groups of people you'd like to see hate crime protection? someone objected to it being referred to as protection, but since you've decided, with no evidence whatsoever, that it acts as a deterrent, it's a fitting description.
So, can you list who you believe should be afforded hate crime protection? Thanks.
That's easy: potential Democrat voters.
i think it really can't be helped that it's generally the potential rightwing voters who commit hate crimes and resent people not being able to beat up gays and lynch blacks.
Beating up the gay should get him extra time in jail. Seems to me they are different crimes even if the victims got beat up just the same.
And we aren't trying to send a message to people who prey on neighbors who play their music too loud.
That's exactly what we've been saying. You are giving added value to a group of people which is immoral and wrong. Our federal or state government should not be assigning value to people, people should all be treated the same by governments.
And again, if harsher penalties equal more deterrent, why not give that exact same protection to everybody? After all, if you get an extra five years for a felony assault, your precious little groups would still be included. Their attackers would still get that extra five years, and so would everybody else.
Why do some people get 5 years and some get 10 for assault and battery? The circumstances.Bottom line-----------hate crime legislation is unconstitutional because it makes the exact crime more or less serious based on whether the criminal liked or hated the victim based on race, sex, ethnicity, etc.
Murder is murder whether its done to steal a watch or because the murderer does not like the victim's race.
we punish crimes, not thoughts
A judge and jury can sentence someone to 2-20 years. Why do some only get 2? I'll bet you they aren't hate crimes.
I broke into a guys house once and beat the hell out of him for threatening me. I could have done up to ten years but probably would have done less than 5 because of the circumstances.Because the circumstances of those other felons don't call for an additional 5 yearsIf it can be proven a criminal preys on minorities then why not punish them for that? Guy talks for years about how blacks or gays are ruining America then one day he beats up a gay or black he's never met, that should be different than if he beats up a fellow white neighbor for playing his music too loud.That's easy: potential Democrat voters.
i think it really can't be helped that it's generally the potential rightwing voters who commit hate crimes and resent people not being able to beat up gays and lynch blacks.
Beating up the gay should get him extra time in jail. Seems to me they are different crimes even if the victims got beat up just the same.
And we aren't trying to send a message to people who prey on neighbors who play their music too loud.
That's exactly what we've been saying. You are giving added value to a group of people which is immoral and wrong. Our federal or state government should not be assigning value to people, people should all be treated the same by governments.
And again, if harsher penalties equal more deterrent, why not give that exact same protection to everybody? After all, if you get an extra five years for a felony assault, your precious little groups would still be included. Their attackers would still get that extra five years, and so would everybody else.
So you want to punish people for what they were thinking rather than what they did?
Circumstances matterA judge and jury can sentence someone to 2-20 years. Why do some only get 2? I'll bet you they aren't hate crimes.
A jury can't sentence anybody to anything. That's up to the judge. The jury can however make recommendations of the death penalty, but that doesn't mean the judge has to abide by their suggestion.
In most cases, a judge looks at the circumstances of the crime and remorse of the accused. There is a difference between some kid that got caught with some coke one time in his life and a habitual drug offender. They may be the same crime, but their criminal history is much different. Therefore the judge takes that into consideration.
I broke into a guys house once and beat the hell out of him for threatening me. I could have done up to ten years but probably would have done less than 5 because of the circumstances.Because the circumstances of those other felons don't call for an additional 5 yearsIf it can be proven a criminal preys on minorities then why not punish them for that? Guy talks for years about how blacks or gays are ruining America then one day he beats up a gay or black he's never met, that should be different than if he beats up a fellow white neighbor for playing his music too loud.i think it really can't be helped that it's generally the potential rightwing voters who commit hate crimes and resent people not being able to beat up gays and lynch blacks.
Beating up the gay should get him extra time in jail. Seems to me they are different crimes even if the victims got beat up just the same.
And we aren't trying to send a message to people who prey on neighbors who play their music too loud.
That's exactly what we've been saying. You are giving added value to a group of people which is immoral and wrong. Our federal or state government should not be assigning value to people, people should all be treated the same by governments.
And again, if harsher penalties equal more deterrent, why not give that exact same protection to everybody? After all, if you get an extra five years for a felony assault, your precious little groups would still be included. Their attackers would still get that extra five years, and so would everybody else.
So you want to punish people for what they were thinking rather than what they did?
If I did it cause he was gay or black I woulda shoulda got more time yes.
Circumstances matterA judge and jury can sentence someone to 2-20 years. Why do some only get 2? I'll bet you they aren't hate crimes.
A jury can't sentence anybody to anything. That's up to the judge. The jury can however make recommendations of the death penalty, but that doesn't mean the judge has to abide by their suggestion.
In most cases, a judge looks at the circumstances of the crime and remorse of the accused. There is a difference between some kid that got caught with some coke one time in his life and a habitual drug offender. They may be the same crime, but their criminal history is much different. Therefore the judge takes that into consideration.
I didn't beat him up BECAUSE he was straight or white. If I did that would be a hate crime.I broke into a guys house once and beat the hell out of him for threatening me. I could have done up to ten years but probably would have done less than 5 because of the circumstances.Because the circumstances of those other felons don't call for an additional 5 yearsIf it can be proven a criminal preys on minorities then why not punish them for that? Guy talks for years about how blacks or gays are ruining America then one day he beats up a gay or black he's never met, that should be different than if he beats up a fellow white neighbor for playing his music too loud.
Beating up the gay should get him extra time in jail. Seems to me they are different crimes even if the victims got beat up just the same.
And we aren't trying to send a message to people who prey on neighbors who play their music too loud.
That's exactly what we've been saying. You are giving added value to a group of people which is immoral and wrong. Our federal or state government should not be assigning value to people, people should all be treated the same by governments.
And again, if harsher penalties equal more deterrent, why not give that exact same protection to everybody? After all, if you get an extra five years for a felony assault, your precious little groups would still be included. Their attackers would still get that extra five years, and so would everybody else.
So you want to punish people for what they were thinking rather than what they did?
If I did it cause he was gay or black I woulda shoulda got more time yes.
Ok, back to the basic question. Why should it matter if he was gay or black? You beat the hell out of another human being. Would it be a lesser crime if he was white and straight?
We prosecute people thinking about blowing up shit.Circumstances matterA judge and jury can sentence someone to 2-20 years. Why do some only get 2? I'll bet you they aren't hate crimes.
A jury can't sentence anybody to anything. That's up to the judge. The jury can however make recommendations of the death penalty, but that doesn't mean the judge has to abide by their suggestion.
In most cases, a judge looks at the circumstances of the crime and remorse of the accused. There is a difference between some kid that got caught with some coke one time in his life and a habitual drug offender. They may be the same crime, but their criminal history is much different. Therefore the judge takes that into consideration.
Yes, but the thoughts of the criminal don't matter. We punish the crime, not the thoughts.
I didn't beat him up BECAUSE he was straight or white. If I did that would be a hate crime.I broke into a guys house once and beat the hell out of him for threatening me. I could have done up to ten years but probably would have done less than 5 because of the circumstances.Because the circumstances of those other felons don't call for an additional 5 yearsThat's exactly what we've been saying. You are giving added value to a group of people which is immoral and wrong. Our federal or state government should not be assigning value to people, people should all be treated the same by governments.
And again, if harsher penalties equal more deterrent, why not give that exact same protection to everybody? After all, if you get an extra five years for a felony assault, your precious little groups would still be included. Their attackers would still get that extra five years, and so would everybody else.
So you want to punish people for what they were thinking rather than what they did?
If I did it cause he was gay or black I woulda shoulda got more time yes.
Ok, back to the basic question. Why should it matter if he was gay or black? You beat the hell out of another human being. Would it be a lesser crime if he was white and straight?
I'll tell you what wouldn't be a hate crime. You see a bunch of gays and you call them names and they whip your ass. They'd still be guilty of a crime but wouldn't get a hate crime slapped on them.
I think you all get it at this point. If you don't like them do away with them.
I have a theory and I'm going to test it out on this issue. I think every issue we talked about every issue is planted in our minds by the media whether you want to call it liberal or I want to call it corporate media I believe it tells us what the issues they want us talking about. I bet the Republicans on capital hill are going to try to do away with hate crimes.
Because this group needs to be protected constitutionally. The hate crime committers.
This issue isn't even on my top 20
