Is this a robbery or a hate crime?

[novasteve]

Tampa teen Tavares Spencer charged with hate crime for shooting transgender woman | wtsp.com

You should all be disturbed by this, even though I doubt many if any would actually commit an act of violence on here.. If they can get your cell phone and use a text message from 1 hour within the crime to argue what you were thinking at the exact time you committed the crime, because that's the only time that matters, you can be charged with a hate crime.

It doesn't matter if he posted that before the crime, or after the crime. A hate crime, or any crime, the proper mens rea that is relevant is what were you thinking at the exact second the crime took place.

That's why intoxication, even voluntary is a defense to burglary. You may not have been thinking about committing a further felony when you were entering someone's house if you were drunk. You'd only get busted for tresspass, breaking and entering, but not burgarly.

 

[PratchettFan]

I have never thought the concept of a hate crime was appropriate. He shot someone - do we think he did it for love? Who cares whether it was hate or not. It was the shooting that was illegal, not the emotion behind it.

 

[noose4]

When somebody shoots another human being (outside of self defense) I support the most possible charges being put upon them, so I have no problem with certain crimes being designated hate crimes.

 

[PratchettFan]

When somebody shoots another human being (outside of self defense) I support the most possible charges being put upon them, so I have no problem with certain crimes being designated hate crimes.

I am all for making unacceptable actions illegal. I am opposed to making feelings illegal.

 

[noose4]

When somebody shoots another human being (outside of self defense) I support the most possible charges being put upon them, so I have no problem with certain crimes being designated hate crimes.

I am all for making unacceptable actions illegal. I am opposed to making feelings illegal.

Feelings are not illegal, acting upon them in a criminal manner is.

 

[PratchettFan]

When somebody shoots another human being (outside of self defense) I support the most possible charges being put upon them, so I have no problem with certain crimes being designated hate crimes.

I am all for making unacceptable actions illegal. I am opposed to making feelings illegal.

Feelings are not illegal, acting upon them in a criminal manner is.

If the feelings are not illegal, then what have they to do with the criminal act? If I shoot you because I don't like your hair color, how is that worse than shooting you because I want your wallet?

 

[noose4]

I am all for making unacceptable actions illegal. I am opposed to making feelings illegal.

Feelings are not illegal, acting upon them in a criminal manner is.

If the feelings are not illegal, then what have they to do with the criminal act? If I shoot you because I don't like your hair color, how is that worse than shooting you because I want your wallet?

Crimes of passion are different from crimes of greed as are hate crimes, motive means something, gunning down people just because of the color of their skin, religious affiliation, sexual identity, etc, should be taken into consideration.

 

[Katzndogz]

This is going to be a good one. Evidently Spencer thought the man was a woman and became interested in him, found out he was lied to, and wanted some revenge because of the lie.

This is what happens when people are expected to deny reality.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

This is going to be a good one. Evidently Spencer thought the man was a woman and became interested in him, found out he was lied to, and wanted some revenge because of the lie.

This is what happens when people are expected to deny reality.

He'll go down for murder no doubt. In retrospect I'm sure he wishes he would have just given him a good beating.
He could could probably get some sympathy from a jury if he had done that.
Thats assuming of course this didnt happen in commifornia.

 

[PratchettFan]

Feelings are not illegal, acting upon them in a criminal manner is.

If the feelings are not illegal, then what have they to do with the criminal act? If I shoot you because I don't like your hair color, how is that worse than shooting you because I want your wallet?

Crimes of passion are different from crimes of greed as are hate crimes, motive means something, gunning down people just because of the color of their skin, religious affiliation, sexual identity, etc, should be taken into consideration.

I fail to see why. I can understand intent being a factor. If I shoot you as an accident, that is different than shooting you intentionally. However, if it is intentional then it should not matter why it was intentional.

 

[PratchettFan]

This is going to be a good one. Evidently Spencer thought the man was a woman and became interested in him, found out he was lied to, and wanted some revenge because of the lie.

This is what happens when people are expected to deny reality.

He'll go down for murder no doubt. In retrospect I'm sure he wishes he would have just given him a good beating.
He could could probably get some sympathy from a jury if he had done that.
Thats assuming of course this didnt happen in commifornia.

I don't believe the victim died.

 

[noose4]

If the feelings are not illegal, then what have they to do with the criminal act? If I shoot you because I don't like your hair color, how is that worse than shooting you because I want your wallet?

Crimes of passion are different from crimes of greed as are hate crimes, motive means something, gunning down people just because of the color of their skin, religious affiliation, sexual identity, etc, should be taken into consideration.

I fail to see why. I can understand intent being a factor. If I shoot you as an accident, that is different than shooting you intentionally. However, if it is intentional then it should not matter why it was intentional.

Stealing a loaf of bread to feed your family is different from stealing a loaf of bread because the baker is some one with brown hair and you hate people with brown hair.

 

[PratchettFan]

Crimes of passion are different from crimes of greed as are hate crimes, motive means something, gunning down people just because of the color of their skin, religious affiliation, sexual identity, etc, should be taken into consideration.

I fail to see why. I can understand intent being a factor. If I shoot you as an accident, that is different than shooting you intentionally. However, if it is intentional then it should not matter why it was intentional.

Stealing a loaf of bread to feed your family is different from stealing a loaf of bread because the baker is some one with brown hair and you hate people with brown hair.

No. It isn't. It is exactly the same crime.

 

[noose4]

I fail to see why. I can understand intent being a factor. If I shoot you as an accident, that is different than shooting you intentionally. However, if it is intentional then it should not matter why it was intentional.

Stealing a loaf of bread to feed your family is different from stealing a loaf of bread because the baker is some one with brown hair and you hate people with brown hair.

No. It isn't. It is exactly the same crime.

No, motive makes it different.

 

[Katzndogz]

The motive makes it different but there is nothing to suggest that Spencer was motivated by a general dislike of trannies. He was motivated because this particular tranny lied to him which is different.

The baker is shot because the shooter needed bread to feed his family.
The baker is shot because the shooter doesn't like people with brown hair and the baker had brown hair.
The baker is shot because the shooter found out that the baker had cheated him.

Bakers who have brown hair are perfectly safe because having brown hair had nothing to do with the act of cheating.

 

[noose4]

The motive makes it different but there is nothing to suggest that Spencer was motivated by a general dislike of trannies. He was motivated because this particular tranny lied to him which is different.

The baker is shot because the shooter needed bread to feed his family.
The baker is shot because the shooter doesn't like people with brown hair and the baker had brown hair.
The baker is shot because the shooter found out that the baker had cheated him.

Bakers who have brown hair are perfectly safe because having brown hair had nothing to do with the act of cheating.

If the crime was not motivated by the guy being a trannie then hate crime laws should not apply.

 

[Katzndogz]

The motive makes it different but there is nothing to suggest that Spencer was motivated by a general dislike of trannies. He was motivated because this particular tranny lied to him which is different.

The baker is shot because the shooter needed bread to feed his family.
The baker is shot because the shooter doesn't like people with brown hair and the baker had brown hair.
The baker is shot because the shooter found out that the baker had cheated him.

Bakers who have brown hair are perfectly safe because having brown hair had nothing to do with the act of cheating.

If the crime was not motivated by the guy being a trannie then hate crime laws should not apply.

In this particular case, no they shouldn't because there was no motivation to spread fear among transsexuals. The man was not attacked because he was transsexual, but because he lied.

 

[PratchettFan]

Stealing a loaf of bread to feed your family is different from stealing a loaf of bread because the baker is some one with brown hair and you hate people with brown hair.

No. It isn't. It is exactly the same crime.

No, motive makes it different.

Why? Is the bread less stolen? Does the owner of the store have less of a loss? Why does the motive make the act any different?

Now, I have no problem if the jury or the judge takes extenuating circumstances into account. However, stealing a loaf of bread is stealing a loaf of bread regardless of the motive.

 

[PratchettFan]

The motive makes it different but there is nothing to suggest that Spencer was motivated by a general dislike of trannies. He was motivated because this particular tranny lied to him which is different.

The baker is shot because the shooter needed bread to feed his family.
The baker is shot because the shooter doesn't like people with brown hair and the baker had brown hair.
The baker is shot because the shooter found out that the baker had cheated him.

Bakers who have brown hair are perfectly safe because having brown hair had nothing to do with the act of cheating.

Why does motive make it different. In which of those scenarios is the baker less shot?

 

[noose4]

No. It isn't. It is exactly the same crime.

No, motive makes it different.

Why? Is the bread less stolen? Does the owner of the store have less of a loss? Why does the motive make the act any different?

Now, I have no problem if the jury or the judge takes extenuating circumstances into account. However, stealing a loaf of bread is stealing a loaf of bread regardless of the motive.

If I was judging somebody for stealing bread motive would definitely play into the sentence handed down, if bread was stolen to feed starving children the judgement would be (and should be) less harsh than if the bread was stolen for a malicious reason like hatred for the baker.