We must eliminate hate crime laws

[ChrisL]

No it's not. If I look down at my cell phone and accidentally run you over, the physical action is exponentially different than if I stare directly at you, steer directly toward you, and accelerate. Vastly different physical actions nitwit.

No it's not !!!! God you are dense .

It both scenarios you run the guy over . If you planned the murder and then looked down at your phone to set up a fake excuse , it's still murder one !

Bwahahahahaha! You just got owned and you know it. Again, staring directly at you, steering directly toward you, and accelerating, and "looking down at my phone to FAKE it" are all actions and all vastly different than actually looking down at my phone and accidentally hitting you.

You must like being my bitch Timmg because you keep coming back and bending over again and again

How do you prove "accident" ? It's all about what your THINKING at the time .

No, it's about the EVIDENCE. Lol.

Ok. What evidence would change things from murder 1 to manslaughter ?

The evidence that the police/forensics gather at the site, witnesses, etc.

 

[ChrisL]

People who accidentally hit a person usually are charged with involuntary manslaughter. If they did it intentionally and premeditated the crime, then it is murder 1, BUT the court has to prove that the crime was premeditated.

Now, why is it worse if a person intentionally runs down a person because they are black or because they just felt like running someone over? The outcome is the same, the families are going to grieve the same.

 

[Borillar]

It'll happen. Hell depending on how many SC judges Trump is able to nominate, segregation may even be back on the table for you guys. Congratulations.

Hey libtard, what are we thinking?

Ask HenryBHough. He knows what all liberals are thinking.

 

[Timmy]

No it's not !!!! God you are dense .

It both scenarios you run the guy over . If you planned the murder and then looked down at your phone to set up a fake excuse , it's still murder one !

Bwahahahahaha! You just got owned and you know it. Again, staring directly at you, steering directly toward you, and accelerating, and "looking down at my phone to FAKE it" are all actions and all vastly different than actually looking down at my phone and accidentally hitting you.

You must like being my bitch Timmg because you keep coming back and bending over again and again

How do you prove "accident" ? It's all about what your THINKING at the time .

No, it's about the EVIDENCE. Lol.

Ok. What evidence would change things from murder 1 to manslaughter ?

The evidence that the police/forensics gather at the site, witnesses, etc.

There's no difference in the physical evidence. We know what happened . Car + victim . What makes one murder and the other negligence?

 

[Timmy]

People who accidentally hit a person usually are charged with involuntary manslaughter. If they did it intentionally and premeditated the crime, then it is murder 1, BUT the court has to prove that the crime was premeditated.

Now, why is it worse if a person intentionally runs down a person because they are black or because they just felt like running someone over? The outcome is the same, the families are going to grieve the same.

The outcome is the same if it's premeditated or an accident too.

 

[P@triot]

So since my pal TheOldSchool is (understandably) paralyzed by fear right now, I'm going to bury his pitiful "example" since he was obliterated by the murder example and that upset him.

Under his example - a muslim restaurant is burned down by an individual who hates muslims. It should be labeled a "hate crime" by the state and prosecuted as such by the state. And it should carry with it a harsher crime than if the restaurant was burned down because of competition from another restaurant looking to eliminate a competitor. It's now a 10 year crime instead of a 5 year crime. TheOldSchool says this is necessary to act as a deterrent. Got all of that?

Now, ignoring for the moment the obvious - the double jeopardy laws which makes this completely illegal and which the progressives on this board refused to address (because.....well.....they can't), here's where the beat down begins:

Why does the muslim deserve more of a deterrent under the law for his restaurant than I deserve under the law for mine? And even if you could come up with some irrational excuse for why that muslims deserves more of a deterrent to protect his property than I do, how do you propose doing that since everyone is entitled to equal protection under the law? It is discriminatory (ie illegal) for the law to give that muslim extra protections not afforded to me.

 

[Clementine]

Everything about the supposed "hate crime" laws are illegal and unconstitutional. For starters, it's a form of double-jeopardy. It's already illegal to assault someone. Charging them with the assault and a "hate crime" on top of that (or in addition to that to make the penalties for the crime harsher) is absurd. The same goes with murder, rape, etc.

Second, and much more importantly, it violates every basic law we have. Short of a confession, there is absolutely no possible way to prove the mindset of the accused. If the prosecutor were to - in a court of law - ask a witness if the accused committed the crime because they were racist/homophobic/etc., any competent defense attorney would object on the grounds of speculation. Nobody could possibly know what was in the mind of the accused. And any competent judge would sustain the objection. Even if the accused were a devout member of the KKK and killed a black person, nobody could possibly know with any level of certainty that the murder was committed due to the color of the victim. It could have been out of rage from confrontation. It could have been a hired hit by the wife of the victim. It could have been out of a perceived threat by the victim to the accused.

And yet that's exactly what these idiotic hate crime laws do - they assume what was in the mind of the accused and introduce it as "fact" in their arguments. Now that the party of logic and reason is in control again, we need to start repealing these idiotic laws. All minorities are already protected by the same laws that protect any other class of citizen.

Before hate crime laws, motive never had to be proven. It's impossible and a guess at best. Prosecutors always tried to find one because it sounded more convincing if they could say a person was killed for a specific reason.

Now they make assumptions, usually to fit the current political narrative. And the laws don't apply equally to all. Face it, the laws are aimed mostly at whites. We've seen videos where gangs of blacks scream 'kill the cracker' as they commence with beating and yet those are never pegged as hate crimes.

You're right that it's time to do away with these bogus laws.

 

[P@triot]

There's no difference in the physical evidence.

If there was never physical evidence there wouldn't be different charges like Murder in the 1st, Murder in the 2nd, Manslaughter, etc. you nitwit.

 

[beagle9]

Your answer makes my point.
Intent is the difference. But how do you really know the intent.The post says you cannot tell intent because you do not know what is going on in one's head so you must just look at the crime.
We have many crimes where we use evidence to determine intent. The same goes for hate crimes. Evidence will determine intent just like intent is determined in many other crimes.

I fail to see your point here.

If I intend to kill somebody because they cut me off on the highway, or if I intend to kill somebody because they are gay. What difference does the intent make?

I used anger (hate) either way to satisfy my compulsion. Either way, I took out my anger on somebody for whatever reason, and because of that, such reaction should be treated the same by our criminal justice system. After all, if somebody kills a member of your family because they thought such person was ugly, or if they didn't like their race, what difference does that make when dealing out punishment? Both murders should be treated the same.

. The intent by the courts all depending on the stats and circumstances, is to send a message along with the punishment.

 

[ChrisL]

Bwahahahahaha! You just got owned and you know it. Again, staring directly at you, steering directly toward you, and accelerating, and "looking down at my phone to FAKE it" are all actions and all vastly different than actually looking down at my phone and accidentally hitting you.

You must like being my bitch Timmg because you keep coming back and bending over again and again

How do you prove "accident" ? It's all about what your THINKING at the time .

No, it's about the EVIDENCE. Lol.

Ok. What evidence would change things from murder 1 to manslaughter ?

The evidence that the police/forensics gather at the site, witnesses, etc.

There's no difference in the physical evidence. We know what happened . Car + victim . What makes one murder and the other negligence?

You need to watch forensic files sometime. Very informative program.

 

[ChrisL]

Your answer makes my point.
Intent is the difference. But how do you really know the intent.The post says you cannot tell intent because you do not know what is going on in one's head so you must just look at the crime.
We have many crimes where we use evidence to determine intent. The same goes for hate crimes. Evidence will determine intent just like intent is determined in many other crimes.

I fail to see your point here.

If I intend to kill somebody because they cut me off on the highway, or if I intend to kill somebody because they are gay. What difference does the intent make?

I used anger (hate) either way to satisfy my compulsion. Either way, I took out my anger on somebody for whatever reason, and because of that, such reaction should be treated the same by our criminal justice system. After all, if somebody kills a member of your family because they thought such person was ugly, or if they didn't like their race, what difference does that make when dealing out punishment? Both murders should be treated the same.

. The intent by the courts all depending on the stats and circumstances, is to send a message along with the punishment.

A clear message of what? That it's worse to target one person than another for different reasons? Nope, it's not.

 

[P@triot]

There's no difference in the physical evidence. We know what happened . Car + victim . What makes one murder and the other negligence?

You need to watch forensic files sometime. Very informative program.

It wouldn't help. Timmy clearly has a learning disability. And he clearly prefers ideology over reality.

 

[ChrisL]

There's no difference in the physical evidence. We know what happened . Car + victim . What makes one murder and the other negligence?

You need to watch forensic files sometime. Very informative program.

It wouldn't help. Timmy clearly has a learning disability. And he clearly prefers ideology over reality.

Timmmmmaaaayyyyy.

 

[P@triot]

The intent by the courts all depending on the stats and circumstances, is to send a message along with the punishment.

Um....isn't that the point of the punishment in the first place?

The punishment is designed to act as a deterrent. That's why someone goes to prison for 25 years for murder instead of 10. It's a deterrent.

 

[beagle9]

Everything about the supposed "hate crime" laws are illegal and unconstitutional. For starters, it's a form of double-jeopardy. It's already illegal to assault someone. Charging them with the assault and a "hate crime" on top of that (or in addition to that to make the penalties for the crime harsher) is absurd. The same goes with murder, rape, etc.

Second, and much more importantly, it violates every basic law we have. Short of a confession, there is absolutely no possible way to prove the mindset of the accused. If the prosecutor were to - in a court of law - ask a witness if the accused committed the crime because they were racist/homophobic/etc., any competent defense attorney would object on the grounds of speculation. Nobody could possibly know what was in the mind of the accused. And any competent judge would sustain the objection. Even if the accused were a devout member of the KKK and killed a black person, nobody could possibly know with any level of certainty that the murder was committed due to the color of the victim. It could have been out of rage from confrontation. It could have been a hired hit by the wife of the victim. It could have been out of a perceived threat by the victim to the accused.

And yet that's exactly what these idiotic hate crime laws do - they assume what was in the mind of the accused and introduce it as "fact" in their arguments. Now that the party of logic and reason is in control again, we need to start repealing these idiotic laws. All minorities are already protected by the same laws that protect any other class of citizen.

Before hate crime laws, motive never had to be proven. It's impossible and a guess at best. Prosecutors always tried to find one because it sounded more convincing if they could say a person was killed for a specific reason.

Now they make assumptions, usually to fit the current political narrative. And the laws don't apply equally to all. Face it, the laws are aimed mostly at whites. We've seen videos where gangs of blacks scream 'kill the cracker' as they commence with beating and yet those are never pegged as hate crimes.

You're right that it's time to do away with these bogus laws.

. No it's time to get judges and prosecutors who will apply the laws equally and fairly. No one race should have special outcomes in these cases where the intent that turned into actions were ruled differently upon by race. All laws should apply equally, and should be inclusive for all if the crimes are the same.

 

[P@triot]

So since my pal TheOldSchool is (understandably) paralyzed by fear right now, I'm going to bury his pitiful "example" since he was obliterated by the murder example and that upset him.

Under his example - a muslim restaurant is burned down by an individual who hates muslims. It should be labeled a "hate crime" by the state and prosecuted as such by the state. And it should carry with it a harsher crime than if the restaurant was burned down because of competition from another restaurant looking to eliminate a competitor. It's now a 10 year crime instead of a 5 year crime. TheOldSchool says this is necessary to act as a deterrent. Got all of that?

Now, ignoring for the moment the obvious - the double jeopardy laws which makes this completely illegal and which the progressives on this board refused to address (because.....well.....they can't), here's where the beat down begins:

Why does the muslim deserve more of a deterrent under the law for his restaurant than I deserve under the law for mine? And even if you could come up with some irrational excuse for why that muslims deserves more of a deterrent to protect his property than I do, how do you propose doing that since everyone is entitled to equal protection under the law? It is discriminatory (ie illegal) for the law to give that muslim extra protections not afforded to me.

 

[Timmy]

So since my pal TheOldSchool is (understandably) paralyzed by fear right now, I'm going to bury his pitiful "example" since he was obliterated by the murder example and that upset him.

Under his example - a muslim restaurant is burned down by an individual who hates muslims. It should be labeled a "hate crime" by the state and prosecuted as such by the state. And it should carry with it a harsher crime than if the restaurant was burned down because of competition from another restaurant looking to eliminate a competitor. It's now a 10 year crime instead of a 5 year crime. TheOldSchool says this is necessary to act as a deterrent. Got all of that?

Now, ignoring for the moment the obvious - the double jeopardy laws which makes this completely illegal and which the progressives on this board refused to address (because.....well.....they can't), here's where the beat down begins:

Why does the muslim deserve more of a deterrent under the law for his restaurant than I deserve under the law for mine? And even if you could come up with some irrational excuse for why that muslims deserves more of a deterrent to protect his property than I do, how do you propose doing that since everyone is entitled to equal protection under the law? It is discriminatory (ie illegal) for the law to give that muslim extra protections not afforded to me.

View attachment 98968

Hate crime laws cover everyone . Whites too.

If I spray paint my naMe on the side of a church , that's vandalism . Probably get a fine as punishment . If I spray paint , "Christians are all scum who should be burned alive " . That's a hate crime . And should get a harsher punishment because of the affect on all the church goers .

 

[ChrisL]

Everything about the supposed "hate crime" laws are illegal and unconstitutional. For starters, it's a form of double-jeopardy. It's already illegal to assault someone. Charging them with the assault and a "hate crime" on top of that (or in addition to that to make the penalties for the crime harsher) is absurd. The same goes with murder, rape, etc.

Second, and much more importantly, it violates every basic law we have. Short of a confession, there is absolutely no possible way to prove the mindset of the accused. If the prosecutor were to - in a court of law - ask a witness if the accused committed the crime because they were racist/homophobic/etc., any competent defense attorney would object on the grounds of speculation. Nobody could possibly know what was in the mind of the accused. And any competent judge would sustain the objection. Even if the accused were a devout member of the KKK and killed a black person, nobody could possibly know with any level of certainty that the murder was committed due to the color of the victim. It could have been out of rage from confrontation. It could have been a hired hit by the wife of the victim. It could have been out of a perceived threat by the victim to the accused.

And yet that's exactly what these idiotic hate crime laws do - they assume what was in the mind of the accused and introduce it as "fact" in their arguments. Now that the party of logic and reason is in control again, we need to start repealing these idiotic laws. All minorities are already protected by the same laws that protect any other class of citizen.

Before hate crime laws, motive never had to be proven. It's impossible and a guess at best. Prosecutors always tried to find one because it sounded more convincing if they could say a person was killed for a specific reason.

Now they make assumptions, usually to fit the current political narrative. And the laws don't apply equally to all. Face it, the laws are aimed mostly at whites. We've seen videos where gangs of blacks scream 'kill the cracker' as they commence with beating and yet those are never pegged as hate crimes.

You're right that it's time to do away with these bogus laws.

. No it's time to get judges and prosecutors who will apply the laws equally and fairly. No one race should have special outcomes in these cases where the intent that turned into actions were ruled differently upon by race. All laws should apply equally, and should be inclusive for all if the crimes are the same.

I agree and that is why I'm against hate crime laws. I am no less affected by a crime than a person of another race/gender/whatever.

 

[Timmy]

Your answer makes my point.
Intent is the difference. But how do you really know the intent.The post says you cannot tell intent because you do not know what is going on in one's head so you must just look at the crime.
We have many crimes where we use evidence to determine intent. The same goes for hate crimes. Evidence will determine intent just like intent is determined in many other crimes.

I fail to see your point here.

If I intend to kill somebody because they cut me off on the highway, or if I intend to kill somebody because they are gay. What difference does the intent make?

I used anger (hate) either way to satisfy my compulsion. Either way, I took out my anger on somebody for whatever reason, and because of that, such reaction should be treated the same by our criminal justice system. After all, if somebody kills a member of your family because they thought such person was ugly, or if they didn't like their race, what difference does that make when dealing out punishment? Both murders should be treated the same.

. The intent by the courts all depending on the stats and circumstances, is to send a message along with the punishment.

A clear message of what? That it's worse to target one person than another for different reasons? Nope, it's not.

Ok . Then rape should be treated the same as any other assualt ?

 

[ChrisL]

So since my pal TheOldSchool is (understandably) paralyzed by fear right now, I'm going to bury his pitiful "example" since he was obliterated by the murder example and that upset him.

Under his example - a muslim restaurant is burned down by an individual who hates muslims. It should be labeled a "hate crime" by the state and prosecuted as such by the state. And it should carry with it a harsher crime than if the restaurant was burned down because of competition from another restaurant looking to eliminate a competitor. It's now a 10 year crime instead of a 5 year crime. TheOldSchool says this is necessary to act as a deterrent. Got all of that?

Now, ignoring for the moment the obvious - the double jeopardy laws which makes this completely illegal and which the progressives on this board refused to address (because.....well.....they can't), here's where the beat down begins:

Why does the muslim deserve more of a deterrent under the law for his restaurant than I deserve under the law for mine? And even if you could come up with some irrational excuse for why that muslims deserves more of a deterrent to protect his property than I do, how do you propose doing that since everyone is entitled to equal protection under the law? It is discriminatory (ie illegal) for the law to give that muslim extra protections not afforded to me.

View attachment 98968

Hate crime laws cover everyone . Whites too.

If I spray paint my naMe on the side of a church , that's vandalism . Probably get a fine as punishment . If I spray paint , "Christians are all scum who should be burned alive " . That's a hate crime . And should get a harsher punishment because of the affect on all the church goers .

And rape has the effect of putting fear into ALL women in the area, regardless of the motive, but that is not a hate crime.