Hate crime?

[Nik]

No, its not "his fault". I knew someone was going to say something retarded like this. Just because a crime isn't predicated on hate doesn't mean its not a crime or shouldn't be prevented. Someone being killed is bad whether its because of hate, or for property.

What I said was not retarded it was to prove a point. Why do we need to know why a crime is committed when a crime is committed? The same penalty should be imposed on the same crimes regardless of "reason".

Go here and look around. When people look at hate crimes the thought is "omg, its a thought crime, we can't punish for things that people think!"

Actually we do. And have for hundreds of years. Its called Mens Rea and is an old and complicated legal doctrine. Here is a short legal primer for you.

Mens rea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Mr. President]

Justification is seperate from reason. If it was self defense It is NOT A CRIME and therefore can not be held under the same light.

 

[Mr. President]

No, its not "his fault". I knew someone was going to say something retarded like this. Just because a crime isn't predicated on hate doesn't mean its not a crime or shouldn't be prevented. Someone being killed is bad whether its because of hate, or for property.

What I said was not retarded it was to prove a point. Why do we need to know why a crime is committed when a crime is committed? The same penalty should be imposed on the same crimes regardless of "reason".

Go here and look around. When people look at hate crimes the thought is "omg, its a thought crime, we can't punish for things that people think!"

Actually we do. And have for hundreds of years. Its called Mens Rea and is an old and complicated legal doctrine. Here is a short legal primer for you.

Mens rea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My Friend you can talk to me but not down to me. You can not have freedom of religion and prosecute for a mindset. You can not have freedom of speech and prosecute for an opinion verbalized.

 

[JBeukema]

Gang fights are NOT about hate - they are about TERRITORY!

Race crimes are not about hate, they are about TERRITORY

THIS country is for my race- get the fuck out.

 

[Nik]

Justification is seperate from reason. If it was self defense It is NOT A CRIME and therefore can not be held under the same light.

Justification is NOT separate from reason. Every justification for a crime requires that one give a reason as to why one committed the crime. If you shoot someone in the face in self defense, you still committed a crime. Its just we let you off because you have a justification for committing said crime, and we don't punish you for it.

The justification of self defense requires knowing what one was thinking.

 

[KittenKoder]

Here is another angle. Perhaps some crimes require more "hate" than others, we'll assume that it's true in spite of the obvious fact that all crime has hate involved in some way. But for arguments sake, we'll assume that some crimes the intent is hatred. Why do specific "classes" of people need to be detailed?

 

[Nik]

What I said was not retarded it was to prove a point. Why do we need to know why a crime is committed when a crime is committed? The same penalty should be imposed on the same crimes regardless of "reason".

Go here and look around. When people look at hate crimes the thought is "omg, its a thought crime, we can't punish for things that people think!"

Actually we do. And have for hundreds of years. Its called Mens Rea and is an old and complicated legal doctrine. Here is a short legal primer for you.

Mens rea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My Friend you can talk to me but not down to me. You can not have freedom of religion and prosecute for a mindset. You can not have freedom of speech and prosecute for an opinion verbalized.

Nobody is prosecuting for an opinion verbalized. They are prosecuting for a motive, a reason behind the crime. And yes, I am talking down to you. The law is complicated, as a layperson your not expected to know it, but to anyone trained in the law the idea that mental elements can't be part of a crime is just obviously incorrect.

 

[Nik]

Here is another angle. Perhaps some crimes require more "hate" than others, we'll assume that it's true in spite of the obvious fact that all crime has hate involved in some way. But for arguments sake, we'll assume that some crimes the intent is hatred. Why do specific "classes" of people need to be detailed?

Yes the "obvious fact" that I've debunked.

 

[Mr. President]

Justification is NOT separate from reason. Every justification for a crime requires that one give a reason as to why one committed the crime. If you shoot someone in the face in self defense, you still committed a crime. Its just we let you off because you have a justification for committing said crime, and we don't punish you for it.

The justification of self defense requires knowing what one was thinking.

No justification of self defense requires knowing the variables and determining if a defensive posture was acceptable and if the level of defense was legal. What the person was thinking has nothing to do with it.

 

[KittenKoder]

Here is another angle. Perhaps some crimes require more "hate" than others, we'll assume that it's true in spite of the obvious fact that all crime has hate involved in some way. But for arguments sake, we'll assume that some crimes the intent is hatred. Why do specific "classes" of people need to be detailed?

Yes the "obvious fact" that I've debunked.

Really, how many people do you know can kill someone they love without a logical and legal reason?

 

[Nik]

Justification is NOT separate from reason. Every justification for a crime requires that one give a reason as to why one committed the crime. If you shoot someone in the face in self defense, you still committed a crime. Its just we let you off because you have a justification for committing said crime, and we don't punish you for it.

The justification of self defense requires knowing what one was thinking.

No justification of self defense requires knowing the variables and determining if a defensive posture was acceptable and if the level of defense was legal. What the person was thinking has nothing to do with it.

*sigh*

Criminal Law Capsule Summary - Chapter 8

The privilege of self-defense is based on reasonable appearances, rather than on objective reality. Thus, a person is justified in using force to protect himself if he subjectively believes that such force is necessary to repel an imminent unlawful attack, even if appearances prove to be false.

 

[Nik]

Here is another angle. Perhaps some crimes require more "hate" than others, we'll assume that it's true in spite of the obvious fact that all crime has hate involved in some way. But for arguments sake, we'll assume that some crimes the intent is hatred. Why do specific "classes" of people need to be detailed?

Yes the "obvious fact" that I've debunked.

Really, how many people do you know can kill someone they love without a logical and legal reason?

Oh. My. God.

Ok. A few things.

1) I don't know anyone who can kill someone they love, or hate. I tend not to be friends with murderers.
2) There are more emotions than love and hate. Merely because one does not love someone does not mean one hates them.
3) How bout you read the thread. We've gone over this before. Someone said the exact same bullshit you just said.

 

[KittenKoder]

Yes the "obvious fact" that I've debunked.

Really, how many people do you know can kill someone they love without a logical and legal reason?

Oh. My. God.

Ok. A few things.

1) I don't know anyone who can kill someone they love, or hate. I tend not to be friends with murderers.
2) There are more emotions than love and hate. Merely because one does not love someone does not mean one hates them.
3) How bout you read the thread. We've gone over this before. Someone said the exact same bullshit you just said.

Aah ... but here's where your argument fails, you have to hate something to destroy it, period, you cannot have any other feeling towards it. There are other emotions, but hatred isn't even just an emotion, it's a point of view. One could argue that hate and love are not even emotions at all but are instead the source of different emotions. As for not knowing any, you know them from the news, reports, police documentation, court transcripts. Just because you don't meet people in person does not mean you don't know them. You know me, yet you have never met me in person, though you don't know me as well as you think.

Many say what I have said, I said it twice in this thread myself. You cannot care about what you destroy in any way, especially life, that has been proven time and again. But you avoid the real question: Why does it have to specify only a few groups instead of just saying all crime?

 

[Mr. President]

*sigh*

Criminal Law Capsule Summary - Chapter 8

The privilege of self-defense is based on reasonable appearances, rather than on objective reality. Thus, a person is justified in using force to protect himself if he subjectively believes that such force is necessary to repel an imminent unlawful attack, even if appearances prove to be false.

I understand your copy and paste techniques may not be all the way there

The Code prohibits the use of deadly force by a deadly aggressor, i.e., one who, "with the purpose of causing death or serious bodily injury, provoked the use of force against himself in the same encounter."

The law says the person can not be the agressor which is the automatic qualify or disqualifier for self defense. Situation first is what decides if the person is in a state of defense or offense not a mindset. Please remove your head from your fourth point of contact.

You may punch me and be the agressor but if I am not afraid of you and the only the that registers in my mind is that now I can whip you legally the self defense plee will still hold because the court doesn't know what I was thinking only that I was not the agressor. You freakin google lawyer.

 

[Nik]

Really, how many people do you know can kill someone they love without a logical and legal reason?

Oh. My. God.

Ok. A few things.

1) I don't know anyone who can kill someone they love, or hate. I tend not to be friends with murderers.
2) There are more emotions than love and hate. Merely because one does not love someone does not mean one hates them.
3) How bout you read the thread. We've gone over this before. Someone said the exact same bullshit you just said.

Aah ... but here's where your argument fails, you have to hate something to destroy it, period, you cannot have any other feeling towards it.

Really? So when there is a mosquito on my arm and I want to kill it so it doesn't bite me, I hate it? Hate? Really?

Yeah, no. You are an overly simplistic emotional wreck. You can want to destroy things without hating them.

There are other emotions, but hatred isn't even just an emotion, it's a point of view. One could argue that hate and love are not even emotions at all but are instead the source of different emotions. As for not knowing any, you know them from the news, reports, police documentation, court transcripts. Just because you don't meet people in person does not mean you don't know them. You know me, yet you have never met me in person, though you don't know me as well as you think.

Many say what I have said, I said it twice in this thread myself. You cannot care about what you destroy in any way, especially life, that has been proven time and again. But you avoid the real question: Why does it have to specify only a few groups instead of just saying all crime?

Nobody is saying that they care about the victims. They don't. But I don't care about Billy Bob Thornton. If he died I might go "hmm. That sucks" for a brief millisecond, but I really don't care. And its really not out of hate.

 

[Nik]

The law says the person can not be the agressor which is the automatic qualify or disqualifier for self defense. Situation first is what decides if the person is in a state of defense or offense not a mindset. Please remove your head from your fourth point of contact.

No, its not. If you believe someone is pointing a gun at you, and they actually aren't (i.e. aren't an aggressor), and you shoot them, you could still claim self defense.

You may punch me and be the agressor but if I am not afraid of you and the only the that registers in my mind is that now I can whip you legally the self defense plee will still hold because the court doesn't know what I was thinking only that I was not the agressor. You freakin google lawyer.

No. Thats not how self defense works. You don't get to punch someone just because they punched you first. As the link said, you have to feel that there is an imminent threat.

And no, I'm not a google lawyer. I'm merely finding proof for you, and even when I do you can't comprehend it. I know your not trained in the law, and thats fine, but at least be halfway literate to understand what lexis is telling you.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Here is another angle. Perhaps some crimes require more "hate" than others, we'll assume that it's true in spite of the obvious fact that all crime has hate involved in some way. But for arguments sake, we'll assume that some crimes the intent is hatred. Why do specific "classes" of people need to be detailed?

Do you deny the existence of hate crime inspite of the evidence? This isn't personal hate, it's hatred of a class of individuals--minorities which is why they are spelled out in hate crime law.

 

[Mr. President]

No, its not. If you believe someone is pointing a gun at you, and they actually aren't (i.e. aren't an aggressor), and you shoot them, you could still claim self defense.

You could claim it but the chances of it standing are slim to none. It would depend on the physical surroundings

No. Thats not how self defense works. You don't get to punch someone just because they punched you first. As the link said, you have to feel that there is an imminent threat.

I can say thats what I felt.

And no, I'm not a google lawyer. I'm merely finding proof for you, and even when I do you can't comprehend it. I know your not trained in the law, and thats fine, but at least be halfway literate to understand what lexis is telling you.

I dont have to be trained in law to comprehend it. You seem to not understand the legality being open for interpretation by a jury of peers.

 

[Sky Dancer]

I should be concerned about an arson wave in 1993? How long ago was that, Sky?

Gays/lesbians are FIVE TIMES MORE LIKELY TO BE ASSAULTED BY A DOMESTIC PARTNER THAN TO BE A VICTIM OF A BIAS CRIME.

Why isn't that your focus, if you sincerely care about violence against gays/lesbians?

Because this thread is about hate crime, NOT domestic violence, not matter how much you derail it. You want to discuss domestic violence? Start another thread.

How do you know that I am unconcerned about domestic violence in the gay and lesbian community? You don't. I just finished a 40 hour course in domestic violence training.

You're using logical fallacy. The inference is if I stick to the topic instead of digressing into domestic violence discussion, my opinion about the need for hate crime legislation is somehow diminished. You argue I don't 'care' about gays and lesbians or I would be taking your detours about domestic violence instead of sticking to the topic of hate crime.

You deny the impact of hate crime on minorties communities and the need to allocate resources to prosecute such crimes. You also object to the existence of hate crime law, you minimize its validity and import and you object to gays and lesbians being included in hate crime law.

Stick to the issue.

Do you even know any gays or lesbians who've been victims of hate crime? I doubt it. Do you tell them they should be more concerned about gay and lesbian domestic violence instead of the crime they were victims of?

You're a hate crime denier--just like a Holocaust denier.

 

[Nik]

No, its not. If you believe someone is pointing a gun at you, and they actually aren't (i.e. aren't an aggressor), and you shoot them, you could still claim self defense.

You could claim it but the chances of it standing are slim to none. It would depend on the physical surroundings

Actually its a pretty good defense. Its a defense cops use all the time. And yes it depends on the physical surroundings, as WELL as other evidence to what the defendant is thinking.

It is based on what the defendant was thinking. Do they use evidence from the real world to infer what the defendant was thinking? Yes. Of course. But the actual justification is what was in his mind.

And no, I'm not a google lawyer. I'm merely finding proof for you, and even when I do you can't comprehend it. I know your not trained in the law, and thats fine, but at least be halfway literate to understand what lexis is telling you.

I dont have to be trained in law to comprehend it. You seem to not understand the legality being open for interpretation by a jury of peers.

The legality isn't open for interpretation. Juries don't get to interpret law. Thats the job for the judge. Don't pretend you know shit when you don't. Your not trained in law, thats fine, but don't go around making all these assertions when you don't know fuck all about what you are talking about.