Righties terrorism vs hate crime paradox .

[Remodeling Maidiac]

cons can you explain the logic behind these talking points :

Righties are against hate crime laws . Why? Because it's "thought police " and who care what the perp is thinking. The crime is the crime. (Example : murder)

BUT , if someone commits a crime with the thought of being a terrorist, suddenly what the perp is thinking is a big deal.

Two real life examples .

Man kills a bunch of black church goers in an attempt to start a race war . Not terrorism. Hate crimes not needed because murder is murder .

Man hits French policeman yelling "this is for Syria " = terrorism .

Isn't terrorism the same "thought crime " as hate crime?

 

[Timmy]

labeling it with another divider causes more uproar.
Throw race or religion it and another few million people get pissed.

thats the mindset of the more stupid among us....if a guy robs a liqueur store and on the way out he turns and calls the clerk an ethnic slur and shoots the clerk dead,should he get more time than if he just turned and shot the guy dead without saying anything?.......i sure as hell dont think so....in either case life in prison without parole OR if on camera,the death penalty,and i mean within 5 years....none of this 25 years on death row shit....

Not true . You'd have to prove that was his motive .

prove what motive?....if you can kill someone for whatever reason just like that,that means you hate.....maximum sentencing...

Crime is all about motive .

A shoots B . That could be justified homicide (not a crime at all) or all the way to 1st degree murder! . The act is the same , whether it's even a crime depends on motive .

Some states have "capitol murder" if you kill a cop. I don't see righties upset about those laws .

Crime is all about motive
i dont care what A's motive is,if he is committing a violent crime against B and kills the guy....he gets the max sentence.....remember i said above self defense is different....

It's different because of motive ! You contradict yourself !!!

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

there is no need for "hate' crime laws.....if you commit a violent crime against someone you should get the max penalty....any violent act against another human being is a hate crime in itself.....and im not talking self defense....

Yea, but hate crimes draw more hate.

and violent crimes dont?....

labeling it with another divider causes more uproar.
Throw race or religion it and another few million people get pissed.

thats the mindset of the more stupid among us....if a guy robs a liqueur store and on the way out he turns and calls the clerk an ethnic slur and shoots the clerk dead,should he get more time than if he just turned and shot the guy dead without saying anything?.......i sure as hell dont think so....in either case life in prison without parole OR if on camera,the death penalty,and i mean within 5 years....none of this 25 years on death row shit....

I used to agree with that --- That we should simply charge the doer for whatever the crime is rather than who the victim is.

BUT, if it had been a "white" church, Dylan Roof would not have murdered the worshipers.

I would also like to think that white supremacists and other rabid right wingers might hesitate to do the crime if they knew the charge would be more but I doubt that.

Its not just that haters gotta hate. Its that these haters are down right crazy.

Isnt he facing the death penalty?
Not sure it matters whether he hated blacks or not if the end result is the same.

 

[Timmy]

cons can you explain the logic behind these talking points :

Righties are against hate crime laws . Why? Because it's "thought police " and who care what the perp is thinking. The crime is the crime. (Example : murder)

BUT , if someone commits a crime with the thought of being a terrorist, suddenly what the perp is thinking is a big deal.

Two real life examples .

Man kills a bunch of black church goers in an attempt to start a race war . Not terrorism. Hate crimes not needed because murder is murder .

Man hits French policeman yelling "this is for Syria " = terrorism .

Isn't terrorism the same "thought crime " as hate crime?

I'm glad you have insults ready to go . Shows you can't argue with my points.

 

[Harry Dresden]

thats the mindset of the more stupid among us....if a guy robs a liqueur store and on the way out he turns and calls the clerk an ethnic slur and shoots the clerk dead,should he get more time than if he just turned and shot the guy dead without saying anything?.......i sure as hell dont think so....in either case life in prison without parole OR if on camera,the death penalty,and i mean within 5 years....none of this 25 years on death row shit....

Not true . You'd have to prove that was his motive .

prove what motive?....if you can kill someone for whatever reason just like that,that means you hate.....maximum sentencing...

Crime is all about motive .

A shoots B . That could be justified homicide (not a crime at all) or all the way to 1st degree murder! . The act is the same , whether it's even a crime depends on motive .

Some states have "capitol murder" if you kill a cop. I don't see righties upset about those laws .

Crime is all about motive
i dont care what A's motive is,if he is committing a violent crime against B and kills the guy....he gets the max sentence.....remember i said above self defense is different....

It's different because of motive ! You contradict yourself !!!

no i didnt.....where did i?.........

 

[Timmy]

Not true . You'd have to prove that was his motive .

prove what motive?....if you can kill someone for whatever reason just like that,that means you hate.....maximum sentencing...

Crime is all about motive .

A shoots B . That could be justified homicide (not a crime at all) or all the way to 1st degree murder! . The act is the same , whether it's even a crime depends on motive .

Some states have "capitol murder" if you kill a cop. I don't see righties upset about those laws .

Crime is all about motive
i dont care what A's motive is,if he is committing a violent crime against B and kills the guy....he gets the max sentence.....remember i said above self defense is different....

It's different because of motive ! You contradict yourself !!!

no i didnt.....where did i?.........

You said self defense is different . What is self defense ?? It's motive !

How else do u call A shooting B a crime or not . The action is the same .

 

[miketx]

cons can you explain the logic behind these talking points :

Righties are against hate crime laws . Why? Because it's "thought police " and who care what the perp is thinking. The crime is the crime. (Example : murder)

BUT , if someone commits a crime with the thought of being a terrorist, suddenly what the perp is thinking is a big deal.

Two real life examples .

Man kills a bunch of black church goers in an attempt to start a race war . Not terrorism. Hate crimes not needed because murder is murder .

Man hits French policeman yelling "this is for Syria " = terrorism .

Isn't terrorism the same "thought crime " as hate crime?

Why do you ask for an explanation you will deny? Nothing is explainable to liberals. Nothing.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

cons can you explain the logic behind these talking points :

Righties are against hate crime laws . Why? Because it's "thought police " and who care what the perp is thinking. The crime is the crime. (Example : murder)

BUT , if someone commits a crime with the thought of being a terrorist, suddenly what the perp is thinking is a big deal.

Two real life examples .

Man kills a bunch of black church goers in an attempt to start a race war . Not terrorism. Hate crimes not needed because murder is murder .

Man hits French policeman yelling "this is for Syria " = terrorism .

Isn't terrorism the same "thought crime " as hate crime?

I'm glad you have insults ready to go . Shows you can't argue with my points.

Insult?

It's a fucking funny. Stop being so sensitive

 

[Harry Dresden]

prove what motive?....if you can kill someone for whatever reason just like that,that means you hate.....maximum sentencing...

Crime is all about motive .

A shoots B . That could be justified homicide (not a crime at all) or all the way to 1st degree murder! . The act is the same , whether it's even a crime depends on motive .

Some states have "capitol murder" if you kill a cop. I don't see righties upset about those laws .

Crime is all about motive
i dont care what A's motive is,if he is committing a violent crime against B and kills the guy....he gets the max sentence.....remember i said above self defense is different....

It's different because of motive ! You contradict yourself !!!

no i didnt.....where did i?.........

You said self defense is different . What is self defense ?? It's motive !

How else do u call A shooting B a crime or not . The action is the same .

learn to read timmy.....in my first post i was talking about violent crimes against somebody and i said this does not include self defense which is different....we were talking about so called hate crimes tim.....

 

[2aguy]

cons can you explain the logic behind these talking points :

Righties are against hate crime laws . Why? Because it's "thought police " and who care what the perp is thinking. The crime is the crime. (Example : murder)

BUT , if someone commits a crime with the thought of being a terrorist, suddenly what the perp is thinking is a big deal.

Two real life examples .

Man kills a bunch of black church goers in an attempt to start a race war . Not terrorism. Hate crimes not needed because murder is murder .

Man hits French policeman yelling "this is for Syria " = terrorism .

Isn't terrorism the same "thought crime " as hate crime?

No.....there is an organized aspect to terrorism that you don't find with a lone actor like the church shooter. The terrorists we are dealing with have support groups...as the latest guys did...that the lone shooter doesn't have.....once you catch the lone shooter, your job is done....the terrorist, you have to look into associates, cells, and support networks......

 

[PredFan]

cons can you explain the logic behind these talking points :

Righties are against hate crime laws . Why? Because it's "thought police " and who care what the perp is thinking. The crime is the crime. (Example : murder)

BUT , if someone commits a crime with the thought of being a terrorist, suddenly what the perp is thinking is a big deal.

Two real life examples .

Man kills a bunch of black church goers in an attempt to start a race war . Not terrorism. Hate crimes not needed because murder is murder .

Man hits French policeman yelling "this is for Syria " = terrorism .

Isn't terrorism the same "thought crime " as hate crime?

Yes I can explain exactly what is happening. You start with a strawman argument and build an entire conspiracy on it. It's bull shit.

 

[2aguy]

there is no need for "hate' crime laws.....if you commit a violent crime against someone you should get the max penalty....any violent act against another human being is a hate crime in itself.....and im not talking self defense....

Yea, but hate crimes draw more hate.

and violent crimes dont?....

labeling it with another divider causes more uproar.
Throw race or religion it and another few million people get pissed.

thats the mindset of the more stupid among us....if a guy robs a liqueur store and on the way out he turns and calls the clerk an ethnic slur and shoots the clerk dead,should he get more time than if he just turned and shot the guy dead without saying anything?.......i sure as hell dont think so....in either case life in prison without parole OR if on camera,the death penalty,and i mean within 5 years....none of this 25 years on death row shit....

I used to agree with that --- That we should simply charge the doer for whatever the crime is rather than who the victim is.

BUT, if it had been a "white" church, Dylan Roof would not have murdered the worshipers.

I would also like to think that white supremacists and other rabid right wingers might hesitate to do the crime if they knew the charge would be more but I doubt that.

Its not just that haters gotta hate. Its that these haters are down right crazy.

His original target was Charleston college, but they had guys with guns there...so he picked the church because it was a gun free zone. White churches have been targeted by people as well....

Murder is the only crime you need....adding hate as an extra is stupid.

If life in prison or the death penalty isn't going to stop a shooter, nothing will....especially muslim terrorists who are looking for paradise....

 

[Timmy]

cons can you explain the logic behind these talking points :

Righties are against hate crime laws . Why? Because it's "thought police " and who care what the perp is thinking. The crime is the crime. (Example : murder)

BUT , if someone commits a crime with the thought of being a terrorist, suddenly what the perp is thinking is a big deal.

Two real life examples .

Man kills a bunch of black church goers in an attempt to start a race war . Not terrorism. Hate crimes not needed because murder is murder .

Man hits French policeman yelling "this is for Syria " = terrorism .

Isn't terrorism the same "thought crime " as hate crime?

No.....there is an organized aspect to terrorism that you don't find with a lone actor like the church shooter. The terrorists we are dealing with have support groups...as the latest guys did...that the lone shooter doesn't have.....once you catch the lone shooter, your job is done....the terrorist, you have to look into associates, cells, and support networks......

Not true . Especially in the US u find these isis wannabes who really are solo actors "inspired" by isis .

 

[2aguy]

cons can you explain the logic behind these talking points :

Righties are against hate crime laws . Why? Because it's "thought police " and who care what the perp is thinking. The crime is the crime. (Example : murder)

BUT , if someone commits a crime with the thought of being a terrorist, suddenly what the perp is thinking is a big deal.

Two real life examples .

Man kills a bunch of black church goers in an attempt to start a race war . Not terrorism. Hate crimes not needed because murder is murder .

Man hits French policeman yelling "this is for Syria " = terrorism .

Isn't terrorism the same "thought crime " as hate crime?

No.....there is an organized aspect to terrorism that you don't find with a lone actor like the church shooter. The terrorists we are dealing with have support groups...as the latest guys did...that the lone shooter doesn't have.....once you catch the lone shooter, your job is done....the terrorist, you have to look into associates, cells, and support networks......

Not true . Especially in the US u find these isis wannabes who really are solo actors "inspired" by isis .

No...when you dig into their backgrounds they have all had some contact with terrorism support......either from radical clerics or going over seas.....

 

[2aguy]

cons can you explain the logic behind these talking points :

Righties are against hate crime laws . Why? Because it's "thought police " and who care what the perp is thinking. The crime is the crime. (Example : murder)

BUT , if someone commits a crime with the thought of being a terrorist, suddenly what the perp is thinking is a big deal.

Two real life examples .

Man kills a bunch of black church goers in an attempt to start a race war . Not terrorism. Hate crimes not needed because murder is murder .

Man hits French policeman yelling "this is for Syria " = terrorism .

Isn't terrorism the same "thought crime " as hate crime?

No.....there is an organized aspect to terrorism that you don't find with a lone actor like the church shooter. The terrorists we are dealing with have support groups...as the latest guys did...that the lone shooter doesn't have.....once you catch the lone shooter, your job is done....the terrorist, you have to look into associates, cells, and support networks......

Not true . Especially in the US u find these isis wannabes who really are solo actors "inspired" by isis .

Fort Hood shooter...

2009 Fort Hood shooting - Wikipedia

Days after the shooting, reports in the media revealed that a Joint Terrorism Task Force had been aware of a series of e-mails between Hasan and the Yemen-based imam Anwar al-Awlaki, who had been monitored by the NSA as a security threat, and that Hasan's colleagues had been aware of his increasing radicalization for several years.