We must eliminate hate crime laws

[Rustic]

But those liberals believe they know what everybody else is thinking all the time. Of what they're thinking? A pig of a different odor that! But only because they're not allowed to think - only believe.

Yes progressives are control freaks, they could never tolerate anyone that disagrees with them… Fact

 

[ChrisL]

Is it worse to beat the crap out of a person because he or she is gay than it is to beat the crap out of them because you just wanted to? The end result is the same. We have a perp and a victim. The victim isn't any less traumatized because the crime wasn't related to "hate."

 

[P@triot]

Hate crime laws were ruled constitutional

And hate crime laws were never found to be "constitutional". Stop making shit up.

Notice how NYcarbineer ran for the hills after I called him out on this lie? I wonder if a progressive has ever said something that wasn't a blatant lie?

 

[ChrisL]

If someone assaulted me because they hated me, there would be no "hate crime." It would just be assault, and that is all it should be.

If someone just walked up and assaulted you because you were protesting something they liked it could very well be ruled a hate crime because of the political motivation and the randomness of crime. Not the same as if someone who knew you personally thought you needed a beatdown for some personal reason.

Why is it any worse? Explain.

In the hypothetical case I mentioned it would be similar to the "knockout game" that was all the rage a few years ago. Many of those people were charged with hate crimes because it was proven they picked some random white person because they were white and sucker punched them. They charged them with the greater crime because of the potential for copycats and an example had to be made. Just getting in a scuffle with your neighbor over something like his loud music or dog shitting on your lawn is simple assault, attack him simply because of what he is then we have a hate crime.

I think that is wrong because in every assault, the end result is the same and the victim doesn't feel "better" because it wasn't a "hate crime." This singles out some victims as being more "special" than others.

 

[anotherlife]

Children can hate their mothers too, as they often say it too. Isn't hate a result of desire? The desire for greed, or for self defense, or for rest?

Exactly! And should they be charged with a crime for that?!?

Of course not. Just a fact. I can't yet think as far as some criminal dressing connotation to hate. Is that a liberal communist adage?

 

[Rustic]

If someone assaulted me because they hated me, there would be no "hate crime." It would just be assault, and that is all it should be.

If someone just walked up and assaulted you because you were protesting something they liked it could very well be ruled a hate crime because of the political motivation and the randomness of crime. Not the same as if someone who knew you personally thought you needed a beatdown for some personal reason.

Why is it any worse? Explain.

In the hypothetical case I mentioned it would be similar to the "knockout game" that was all the rage a few years ago. Many of those people were charged with hate crimes because it was proven they picked some random white person because they were white and sucker punched them. They charged them with the greater crime because of the potential for copycats and an example had to be made. Just getting in a scuffle with your neighbor over something like his loud music or dog shitting on your lawn is simple assault, attack him simply because of what he is then we have a hate crime.

Dip shit, they slapped them people on the wrist. Because their political correctness would not allow them to charge them with any type of crime… Welcome to political correctness shit for brains. Lol

 

[P@triot]

Is it worse to beat the crap out of a person because he or she is gay than it is to beat the crap out of them because you just wanted to? The end result is the same. We have a perp and a victim. The victim isn't any less traumatized because the crime wasn't related to "hate."

What's worse is for the government to pretend like they can read someone's mind and then enter fake evidence into court.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The action is important, yes, but the motive is important too, I guess. I observed, that some people hate others because they are tired, for example a mother hates her child when she is tired, but after she has had a rest, then she doesn't hate her child any more. Mothers have been known to kill their children occasionally like this. Hate is very interesting.

Let's be honest here. Hate Crimes are those that give extra punishment to criminals that take action against a likely Democrat voter.

Why do we have laws and punishment? To help protect people. So why is one person to get more protection from our laws than another? It's silly.

Somebody comes along and kills a member of my family and a member of yours. But the offender in your families case did so out of hatred of your race. Do you experience any less pain than I did?

How are we ever going to be a united country when our government treats different people in different ways? What happened to "Equal" protection under the law?

 

[P@triot]

Children can hate their mothers too, as they often say it too. Isn't hate a result of desire? The desire for greed, or for self defense, or for rest?

Exactly! And should they be charged with a crime for that?!?

Of course not. Just a fact. I can't yet think as far as some criminal dressing connotation to hate. Is that a liberal communist adage?

So then what are you rambling incoherently about?

 

[ChrisL]

The action is important, yes, but the motive is important too, I guess. I observed, that some people hate others because they are tired, for example a mother hates her child when she is tired, but after she has had a rest, then she doesn't hate her child any more. Mothers have been known to kill their children occasionally like this. Hate is very interesting.

Let's be honest here. Hate Crimes are those that give extra punishment to criminals that take action against a likely Democrat voter.

Why do we have laws and punishment? To help protect people. So why is one person to get more protection from our laws than another? It's silly.

Somebody comes along and kills a member of my family and a member of yours. But the offender in your families case did so out of hatred of your race. Do you experience any less pain than I did?

How are we ever going to be a united country when our government treats different people in different ways? What happened to "Equal" protection under the law?

Bravo! I wish I could put my thoughts into words that well.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

In the hypothetical case I mentioned it would be similar to the "knockout game" that was all the rage a few years ago. Many of those people were charged with hate crimes because it was proven they picked some random white person because they were white and sucker punched them. They charged them with the greater crime because of the potential for copycats and an example had to be made. Just getting in a scuffle with your neighbor over something like his loud music or dog shitting on your lawn is simple assault, attack him simply because of what he is then we have a hate crime.

Really? It's been a while, but if I remember correctly, none of the attackers were charged with a hate crime with the exception of a black attacker who punched a Jewish guy.

 

[anotherlife]

The action is important, yes, but the motive is important too, I guess. I observed, that some people hate others because they are tired, for example a mother hates her child when she is tired, but after she has had a rest, then she doesn't hate her child any more. Mothers have been known to kill their children occasionally like this. Hate is very interesting.

Let's be honest here. Hate Crimes are those that give extra punishment to criminals that take action against a likely Democrat voter.

Why do we have laws and punishment? To help protect people. So why is one person to get more protection from our laws than another? It's silly.

Somebody comes along and kills a member of my family and a member of yours. But the offender in your families case did so out of hatred of your race. Do you experience any less pain than I did?

How are we ever going to be a united country when our government treats different people in different ways? What happened to "Equal" protection under the law?

Then let me mention how Sharia law deals with this situation. If your family member gets killed by the other family, then you get to negotiate compensation with them. This can be money, or indenturement, or a right to kill one of theirs. If the negotiations fail, then someone from that family goes to jail.

 

[Bush92]

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.

100% agree. ALL violence toward an innocent person is a display of hatred for that person. Race or religion have nothing to do with it.

 

[anotherlife]

Children can hate their mothers too, as they often say it too. Isn't hate a result of desire? The desire for greed, or for self defense, or for rest?

Exactly! And should they be charged with a crime for that?!?

Of course not. Just a fact. I can't yet think as far as some criminal dressing connotation to hate. Is that a liberal communist adage?

So then what are you rambling incoherently about?

The psychology of hate, and how to use it to control you.

 

[anotherlife]

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.

100% agree. ALL violence toward an innocent person is a display of hatred for that person. Race or religion have nothing to do with it.

So much for the bullies.

 

[Bush92]

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.

You are a complete idiot. Nobody in the Republican Party or Donald Trump, or any of his inner circle are advocating a return to segregation.

 

[buckeye45_73]

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.

Yeah theyre just kill.whitey laws.....kustoff as we.predicted.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The thread is about how to eliminate hate, I think. For this reason I wonder here about the reasons for hate. In any ways shooting whoever you hate is effective in eliminating hate, because you forget him after. What would you do to eliminate hate?

Hate is reactionary. Hate is usually brought on by a threat; a threat to ones livelihood, a threat to ones family, a threat to ones security or safety, but a threat.

You didn't wake up and say "Boy, I really hate that Barak Obama. He was okay yesterday, but I really hate him today!"

In order for you to hate somebody, they had to present you with a reason first--a threat.

If we can be realistic here, does anybody murder another person without hating them?

 

[occupied]

If someone assaulted me because they hated me, there would be no "hate crime." It would just be assault, and that is all it should be.

If someone just walked up and assaulted you because you were protesting something they liked it could very well be ruled a hate crime because of the political motivation and the randomness of crime. Not the same as if someone who knew you personally thought you needed a beatdown for some personal reason.

Why is it any worse? Explain.

In the hypothetical case I mentioned it would be similar to the "knockout game" that was all the rage a few years ago. Many of those people were charged with hate crimes because it was proven they picked some random white person because they were white and sucker punched them. They charged them with the greater crime because of the potential for copycats and an example had to be made. Just getting in a scuffle with your neighbor over something like his loud music or dog shitting on your lawn is simple assault, attack him simply because of what he is then we have a hate crime.

I think that is wrong because in every assault, the end result is the same and the victim doesn't feel "better" because it wasn't a "hate crime." This singles out some victims as being more "special" than others.

It singles out some crimes for being more serious than others. As I said earlier, hate crimes that actually go to court are usually pretty cut and dried. Look at it like this: if you went out and spray painted "Lynyrd Skynyrd" on some random wall it is not the same thing as spray painting death threats on a mosque or swastikas on a synagogue. See the difference? One is a petty property crime and the other is meant to scare people or provoke a response.

 

[ChrisL]

The thread is about how to eliminate hate, I think. For this reason I wonder here about the reasons for hate. In any ways shooting whoever you hate is effective in eliminating hate, because you forget him after. What would you do to eliminate hate?

Hate is reactionary. Hate is usually brought on by a threat; a threat to ones livelihood, a threat to ones family, a threat to ones security or safety, but a threat.

You didn't wake up and say "Boy, I really hate that Barak Obama. He was okay yesterday, but I really hate him today!"

In order for you to hate somebody, they had to present you with a reason first--a threat.

If we can be realistic here, does anybody murder another person without hating them?

Or just be douchebags. Lol.