Obama Signs the Hate Crime Bill into Law!

[Midnight Marauder]

Presuming to know what is in a persons mind.

They don't "presume to know" my Dear. They still have to prove it and all of the protections and rights of the accused are intact.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

his premise that "black people never get charged for it" falls apart.

That was his premise? How did you arrive at that, mind reading?

And if you read further you'll see my question was self answered, with major help from paperview.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Even my Muslim friends hate the radicals.

Of this I have no doubt. However, we never see the general Muslim population as a whole denouncing the extremists. There's no protests, no leaders of the faith coming on talk shows, nothing but silence for the most part.

Speaks volumes?

First, that's not accurate. There were tons of denouncement by Muslim leaders of acts of terrorism.

TONS of them. Shouldn't be too difficult then, for you to source that.

Do Christian leaders get on national television and denounce abortion clinic bombers?

I see that pretty much all the time, especially on O'Reilly.

 

[DiamondDave]

Everybody's the same.. or they're not. Let's pick one position.. not try to go with both.

But that does not play to the FEELINGS of the lefties

 

[KittenKoder]

Everybody's the same.. or they're not. Let's pick one position.. not try to go with both.

Actually ... um no. The target is: everyone is treated the same by the law, though everyone should be different. Hate crime laws do not treat everyone the same.

 

[Polk]

Of this I have no doubt. However, we never see the general Muslim population as a whole denouncing the extremists. There's no protests, no leaders of the faith coming on talk shows, nothing but silence for the most part.

Speaks volumes?

First, that's not accurate. There were tons of denouncement by Muslim leaders of acts of terrorism.

TONS of them. Shouldn't be too difficult then, for you to source that.

Muslims Condemn Terrorist Attacks
Dozens of options, take your pick.

Do Christian leaders get on national television and denounce abortion clinic bombers?

I see that pretty much all the time, especially on O'Reilly.

Bullshit. You never see it because no one is retarded enough to hold Christians collectively responsible for the act.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Muslims Condemn Terrorist Attacks
Dozens of options, take your pick.

That's a very handy link. Bookmarked. Thank you very much!

Bullshit. You never see it because no one is retarded enough to hold Christians collectively responsible for the act.

Again, it happens all the time. You should watch O'Reilly, at the very least.

 

[saveliberty]

Anyone remember the last time a terrorist was turned in by a family member or Islamic leader? Talk is cheap.

 

[bodecea]

So, the law has descended into mind reading now?

It always has been into mind reading.....Intent is based on mind reading.

 

[bodecea]

Have there ever been a black charged with a hate crime for attacking whites?

Yes...Justice dept statistics on hate crimes:

Federal Bureau of Investigation - Civil Rights - Hate Crime

 

[Midnight Marauder]

So, the law has descended into mind reading now?

It always has been into mind reading.....Intent is based on mind reading.

But this is about..... Mind proving. Intent proving. Too many folks seem to be missing the point that the burden of proof is still on the accuser, the prosecution, and none of any defendant's rights have been taken away by this.

If one is accused of a hate crime, the fed has to prove it. In a court of law. Beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[rightwinger]

So, the law has descended into mind reading now?

It always has been into mind reading.....Intent is based on mind reading.

But this is about..... Mind proving. Intent proving. Too many folks seem to be missing the point that the burden of proof is still on the accuser, the prosecution, and none of any defendant's rights have been taken away by this.

If one is accused of a hate crime, the fed has to prove it. In a court of law. Beyond reasonable doubt.

As in any crime

Where in this bill does it day the prosecution doesn't have to prove anything?

This is the same as a pre-meditated murder. If you want to prosecute first degree murder, you have to prove premeditaion. You are still looking at intent, and what was going on in the persons mind.

 

[Oddball]

So, the law has descended into mind reading now?

It always has been into mind reading.....Intent is based on mind reading.

Intent is parsing out manslaughter vs. murder, not tacking on a surmise as to motivation as an aggravating factor after the fact.

People being assaulted, raped, robbed, and killed are no more so just because they're a member of a specially politically protected group.

And, as others are pointing out, proving "hate" as a motivation delves into the realm of sheer speculation.

 

[rightwinger]

Intent is parsing out manslaughter vs. murder, not tacking on a surmise as to motivation as aggravating factor after the fact.

People being assaulted, raped, robbed, and killed are no more so just because they're a member of a specially politically protected group.

And a person who is murdered is just as dead whether it was pre-meditated or a crime of passion. All crimes have degrees of prosecution based on mitigating factors.

 

[bodecea]

So, the law has descended into mind reading now?

Isn't pre-meditated murder mind reading then?

no

they find proof that it was pre-planned

And don't they have to find proof that something is hate motivated?

 

[Midnight Marauder]

So, the law has descended into mind reading now?

It always has been into mind reading.....Intent is based on mind reading.

Intent is parsing out manslaughter vs. murder, not tacking on a surmise as to motivation as an aggravating factor after the fact.

People being assaulted, raped, robbed, and killed are no more so just because they're a member of a specially politically protected group.

And, as others are pointing out, proving "hate" as a motivation delves into the realm of sheer speculation.

Unless you have credible witnesses to racial slurs while the crime is being committed, video of the crime with audio, confession from the perp, and so on. Evidence. Not speculation.

 

[rightwinger]

It always has been into mind reading.....Intent is based on mind reading.

Intent is parsing out manslaughter vs. murder, not tacking on a surmise as to motivation as an aggravating factor after the fact.

People being assaulted, raped, robbed, and killed are no more so just because they're a member of a specially politically protected group.

And, as others are pointing out, proving "hate" as a motivation delves into the realm of sheer speculation.

Unless you have credible witnesses to racial slurs while the crime is being committed, video of the crime with audio, confession from the perp, and so on. Evidence. Not speculation.

Agree...
Where in the hate crime bill does it say you don't have to have proof?

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Intent is parsing out manslaughter vs. murder, not tacking on a surmise as to motivation as an aggravating factor after the fact.

People being assaulted, raped, robbed, and killed are no more so just because they're a member of a specially politically protected group.

And, as others are pointing out, proving "hate" as a motivation delves into the realm of sheer speculation.

Unless you have credible witnesses to racial slurs while the crime is being committed, video of the crime with audio, confession from the perp, and so on. Evidence. Not speculation.

Agree...
Where in the hate crime bill does it say you don't have to have proof?

I don't know why you keep quoting me then asking this. I haven't made that assertion, and haven't seen anyone else make it.

I am merely pointing out that folks' objections to this don't seem to take into account that the burden of proof is still there. My opinion. Maybe they do.

 

[saveliberty]

Intent is parsing out manslaughter vs. murder, not tacking on a surmise as to motivation as an aggravating factor after the fact.

People being assaulted, raped, robbed, and killed are no more so just because they're a member of a specially politically protected group.

And, as others are pointing out, proving "hate" as a motivation delves into the realm of sheer speculation.

Unless you have credible witnesses to racial slurs while the crime is being committed, video of the crime with audio, confession from the perp, and so on. Evidence. Not speculation.

Agree...
Where in the hate crime bill does it say you don't have to have proof?

Unless they made special rules for hate crime trials, you just have to pass the reasonable doubt test. That is up to the jury and they can be rather subjective.

 

[rightwinger]

Unless you have credible witnesses to racial slurs while the crime is being committed, video of the crime with audio, confession from the perp, and so on. Evidence. Not speculation.

Agree...
Where in the hate crime bill does it say you don't have to have proof?

Unless they made special rules for hate crime trials, you just have to pass the reasonable doubt test. That is up to the jury and they can be rather subjective.

Isn't that why we have a jury?
To decide beyond a reasonable doubt