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.
With out hate crimes, then the left wouldnt be able to define actions against a certain type of people. When blacks murder whites, it is just another day in the United States, but if a white person kills a black person, then it is hate with racial intent.I am curious: HOW do you PROVE someone is racist, let alone what constitutes hate in a court of law? And do we actually NEED bias/hate crime laws? Shouldn't the heinousness of the crime itself be the determining factor, not ambiguous determinations?
You don't need to PROVE anything at all in the US court system in order to convict someone of a crime. It's a forced-confession collective-bargaining plea deal at the district attorney's office. Plead guilty, shut up, and serve your sentence just like everyone else. Do as you're taught. 24x7 police supervision and probation for the rest of your life when you get out. Guns are banned, because you're a criminally insane idiot under federal law. No appeal. And you're not going to pass a background check for employment. Don't even ask. Just get off the property before you get arrested again.I am curious: HOW do you PROVE someone is racist, let alone what constitutes hate in a court of law? And do we actually NEED bias/hate crime laws? Shouldn't the heinousness of the crime itself be the determining factor, not ambiguous determinations?
I am curious: HOW do you PROVE someone is racist, let alone what constitutes hate in a court of law? And do we actually NEED bias/hate crime laws? Shouldn't the heinousness of the crime itself be the determining factor, not ambiguous determinations?
crime is crime, at one time if you did a crime you were hung in front of a bunch of people, so others would realize that it was bad to break the law. Then along came progressive compassion, and we started to have 50 shades of grey on crime, where if someone just stole a car, it isnt as bad as shooting someone, so now it is worse because we have to play the prog game of guess how bad the crime is. Shoot the perps, and soon there arent perps to do any crime....I am curious: HOW do you PROVE someone is racist, let alone what constitutes hate in a court of law? And do we actually NEED bias/hate crime laws? Shouldn't the heinousness of the crime itself be the determining factor, not ambiguous determinations?
It's really hard because you've got to get inside someone's head and sort of read their mind when they are committing any act to know for sure.
I think there is times you can legitimately connect the dots - if someone shouts the N word (or similar) when committing the act or if they brag about going to do xyz to someone because of what/who they are and then it happens. I think that's justified to call that a hate crime.
But outwith that it's too hard to prove and when people are being hellbent to prove it (irrespective of proof) then it's a dangerous road to go down.
There's a can of worms that was opened up the other week with Derek Chauvin when the judge/prosecution were allowed to instruct the jury to forget about intent and concentrate on the result of the action and that's all that matters here. Where that leads to is a scary place and anyone can end up there if something happens and it's the wrong time/wrong place for them.
The folk celebrating that really have no idea what they are actually celebrating - when they should be concerned.
A good example, in Scotland there was a football (soccer) match with Hearts and Celtic a few years ago where a Hearts fan jumped onto the trackside and assaulted the Celtic manager Neil Lennon several times. The prosecution in Scotland charged the offender with an assault aggravated by "religious prejudice" because Hearts fans are considered Protestants and Neil Lennon a high-profile Catholic .... long story short they couldn't prove the religious prejudice aspect and their determination to attach that to the case cost them because the guy did little jail time and was free to go shortly after the trial was finished whereas if they just concentrated on the serious assault aspect they could have got 100% of the conviction from that.
crime is crime, at one time if you did a crime you were hung in front of a bunch of people, so others would realize that it was bad to break the law. Then along came progressive compassion, and we started to have 50 shades of grey on crime, where if someone just stole a car, it isnt as bad as shooting someone, so now it is worse because we have to play the prog game of guess how bad the crime is. Shoot the perps, and soon there arent perps to do any crime....I am curious: HOW do you PROVE someone is racist, let alone what constitutes hate in a court of law? And do we actually NEED bias/hate crime laws? Shouldn't the heinousness of the crime itself be the determining factor, not ambiguous determinations?
It's really hard because you've got to get inside someone's head and sort of read their mind when they are committing any act to know for sure.
I think there is times you can legitimately connect the dots - if someone shouts the N word (or similar) when committing the act or if they brag about going to do xyz to someone because of what/who they are and then it happens. I think that's justified to call that a hate crime.
But outwith that it's too hard to prove and when people are being hellbent to prove it (irrespective of proof) then it's a dangerous road to go down.
There's a can of worms that was opened up the other week with Derek Chauvin when the judge/prosecution were allowed to instruct the jury to forget about intent and concentrate on the result of the action and that's all that matters here. Where that leads to is a scary place and anyone can end up there if something happens and it's the wrong time/wrong place for them.
The folk celebrating that really have no idea what they are actually celebrating - when they should be concerned.
A good example, in Scotland there was a football (soccer) match with Hearts and Celtic a few years ago where a Hearts fan jumped onto the trackside and assaulted the Celtic manager Neil Lennon several times. The prosecution in Scotland charged the offender with an assault aggravated by "religious prejudice" because Hearts fans are considered Protestants and Neil Lennon a high-profile Catholic .... long story short they couldn't prove the religious prejudice aspect and their determination to attach that to the case cost them because the guy did little jail time and was free to go shortly after the trial was finished whereas if they just concentrated on the serious assault aspect they could have got 100% of the conviction from that.
Of course. There's a court psychologist and it's a civil commitment for involuntary psychiatric hospitalization and an automatic revocation of gun rights for the rest of the criminally insane murderer's life. You don't even need a conviction for that.It's really hard because you've got to get inside someone's head and sort of read their mind when they are committing any act to know for sure.
Of course. There's a court psychologist and it's a civil commitment for involuntary psychiatric hospitalization and an automatic revocation of gun rights for the rest of the criminally insane murderer's life. You don't even need a conviction for that.It's really hard because you've got to get inside someone's head and sort of read their mind when they are committing any act to know for sure.
Same same. Red flag laws then. It's an "emergency" gun confiscation by court order.Yeah I know but I think that's something totally different (unless the debate as moved on and I've not read a couple of posts or something).
All race crimes are racist giving special treatment to some group. All unconstitutional.I am curious: HOW do you PROVE someone is racist, let alone what constitutes hate in a court of law? And do we actually NEED bias/hate crime laws? Shouldn't the heinousness of the crime itself be the determining factor, not ambiguous determinations?
Whether it's white people or other privileged folks in general who have never been committed to a mental institution or adjudicated as mental defectives or criminally insane in a court of law.All race crimes are racist giving special treatment to some group. All unconstitutional.
"Shouldn't the heinousness of the crime itself be the determining factor, not ambiguous determinations?"I am curious: HOW do you PROVE someone is racist, let alone what constitutes hate in a court of law? And do we actually NEED bias/hate crime laws? Shouldn't the heinousness of the crime itself be the determining factor, not ambiguous determinations?