We must eliminate hate crime laws

[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?

I hate some people that are jerks, hypocrites, yadda, yadda, yadda. I don't want to kill them though. I'd be happy to just slap them. Would that be a hate crime?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

Okay........I don't know what that has to do with what I said, but okay......

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I hate some people that are jerks, hypocrites, yadda, yadda, yadda. I don't want to kill them though. I'd be happy to just slap them. Would that be a hate crime?

i'm a truck driver, how do you think I feel at the end of every work day???

 

[Bush92]

You can never "eliminate " all hate, but can stop politicizing it through groups like Black Lives Matter running the DNC Convention this summer, and Hillary running around the country holding the dark cloud of a Nazi resurgence under a Trump administration. Her signs even said.."Love Trumps Hate." Joe Biden..."They wanna put cha all in chains." Stupid liberal fuckers push hate and play race card on a daily basis.

 

[Tilly]

So if a rapist targets black women, is that worse than one who targets white women?

If they could somehow prove they were part of some racist agenda then they could be prosecuted as a hate crime. The law does not really deal in questions of what is worse, just what can be proven in court and sentenced under existing legal guidelines.

So, if someone rapes anyone for any reason, they are charged with a crime. There is no need for hate crimes. Raping a woman because she is black is not any worse than raping a woman because she happens to be in the vicinity.

And, as usual, libs are good with dividing people into groups and assigning different weight to the victims based upon their colour or whatever.. White woman raped is not as bad as a black woman raped by a racist.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

We should ALL be against the government reading our thoughts.

Yeah we should but look who just got elected. Yep, the guy who said he planned to increase surveillance on US citizens way beyond even W's and Cheeeney's wildest dreams.

 

[ChrisL]

So if a rapist targets black women, is that worse than one who targets white women?

If they could somehow prove they were part of some racist agenda then they could be prosecuted as a hate crime. The law does not really deal in questions of what is worse, just what can be proven in court and sentenced under existing legal guidelines.

So, if someone rapes anyone for any reason, they are charged with a crime. There is no need for hate crimes. Raping a woman because she is black is not any worse than raping a woman because she happens to be in the vicinity.

And, as usual, libs are good with dividing people into groups and assigning different weight to the victims based upon their colour or whatever.. White woman raped is not as bad as a black woman raped by a racist.

I agree. It's a violation of a woman no matter what her skin color or the perp's "motives."

 

[ChrisL]

We should ALL be against the government reading our thoughts.

Yeah we should but look who just got elected. Yep, the guy who said he planned to increase surveillance on US citizens way beyond even W's and Cheeeney's wildest dreams.

YS citizens?

Edit: Oh, I see you fixed it. Link?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

So if a rapist targets black women, is that worse than one who targets white women?

If they could somehow prove they were part of some racist agenda then they could be prosecuted as a hate crime. The law does not really deal in questions of what is worse, just what can be proven in court and sentenced under existing legal guidelines.

So, if someone rapes anyone for any reason, they are charged with a crime. There is no need for hate crimes. Raping a woman because she is black is not any worse than raping a woman because she happens to be in the vicinity.

And, as usual, libs are good with dividing people into groups and assigning different weight to the victims based upon their colour or whatever.. White woman raped is not as bad as a black woman raped by a racist.

You just described the basic belief of most of the RWNJ traitors on this board.

Try reading about a black person being shot in the back or a black woman being raped and the RWNJ traitors will like up to say they deserve it.

Why don you think they voted for drumpf?

 

[ChrisL]

So if a rapist targets black women, is that worse than one who targets white women?

If they could somehow prove they were part of some racist agenda then they could be prosecuted as a hate crime. The law does not really deal in questions of what is worse, just what can be proven in court and sentenced under existing legal guidelines.

So, if someone rapes anyone for any reason, they are charged with a crime. There is no need for hate crimes. Raping a woman because she is black is not any worse than raping a woman because she happens to be in the vicinity.

And, as usual, libs are good with dividing people into groups and assigning different weight to the victims based upon their colour or whatever.. White woman raped is not as bad as a black woman raped by a racist.

You just described the basic belief of most of the RWNJ traitors on this board.

Try reading about a black person being shot in the back or a black woman being raped and the RWNJ traitors will like up to say they deserve it.

Why don you think they voted for drumpf?

What? She is saying it is not worse when a black woman is raped than when a white woman is raped. It is the SAME. Is she wrong?

 

[ChrisL]

So if a rapist targets black women, is that worse than one who targets white women?

If they could somehow prove they were part of some racist agenda then they could be prosecuted as a hate crime. The law does not really deal in questions of what is worse, just what can be proven in court and sentenced under existing legal guidelines.

So, if someone rapes anyone for any reason, they are charged with a crime. There is no need for hate crimes. Raping a woman because she is black is not any worse than raping a woman because she happens to be in the vicinity.

And, as usual, libs are good with dividing people into groups and assigning different weight to the victims based upon their colour or whatever.. White woman raped is not as bad as a black woman raped by a racist.

You just described the basic belief of most of the RWNJ traitors on this board.

Try reading about a black person being shot in the back or a black woman being raped and the RWNJ traitors will like up to say they deserve it.

Why don you think they voted for drumpf?

Where on earth did she say ANYONE deserves to be raped? What's the matter with you?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

We should ALL be against the government reading our thoughts.

Yeah we should but look who just got elected. Yep, the guy who said he planned to increase surveillance on US citizens way beyond even W's and Cheeeney's wildest dreams.

YS citizens?

Edit: Oh, I see you fixed it. Link?

See my post in the announcements forum, thread called something like 'request for safety pins yadda yadda'. Nice long list. Pick your choose, as they say.

 

[ChrisL]

We should ALL be against the government reading our thoughts.

Yeah we should but look who just got elected. Yep, the guy who said he planned to increase surveillance on US citizens way beyond even W's and Cheeeney's wildest dreams.

YS citizens?

Edit: Oh, I see you fixed it. Link?

See my post in the announcements forum, thread called something like 'request for safety pins yadda yadda'. Nice long list. Pick your choose, as they say.

I have no idea what you're talking about. I asked for a link to your claim. I shouldn't have to go searching for it.

 

[beagle9]

Hate crime law is like thought crime law. It's way too presumptuous.

You don't understand how they work.

If there is substantial evidence, testimony, confession, that the pig-fucker racist was motivated by his own ignorant hate, then the statute applies.

So? What is the difference between someone who murders a person because they "felt like it" and someone who murders someone because they are a racist? The end result is the same, and one is not worse than the other.

. Ok I will try this one.. Just to be fair right... It's not that the crime of murder is any different all due to the various reasons that it was comitted, but what is different or an add to the penalty found in the law's pertaining to hate crimes is the message that it sends upon the sentencing phase................ Ok let's say you murdered someone, and you are charged for murdering someone, but then the phase of the sentencing determined next is to why you murdered someone right ?? So the message that is sent is that you are charged of course for murdering someone, and then you are charged with a hate crime that lays out exactly why you murdered the person if falls into the category (2 charges/more time added). This 2nd phase is meant to send the message to others that you best not bring harm to some one in the form of a hate crime, and if you do so being based on something as ridiculous as someone's skin color, then you are going to wish that you were not that stupid as to do such an ignorant thing as that. So you are charged with murder, and then the hate crime penalty phase if proven adds to the charge in which is meant to send a message from the justice system that you best not do something that idiotic in your life, and if you do the penalty is very high for it.

 

[ChrisL]

Hate crime law is like thought crime law. It's way too presumptuous.

You don't understand how they work.

If there is substantial evidence, testimony, confession, that the pig-fucker racist was motivated by his own ignorant hate, then the statute applies.

So? What is the difference between someone who murders a person because they "felt like it" and someone who murders someone because they are a racist? The end result is the same, and one is not worse than the other.

. Ok I will try this one.. Just to be fair right... It's not that the crime of murder is any different all due to the various reasons that it was comitted, but what is different or an add to the penalty found in the law's pertaining to hate crimes is the message that it sends upon the sentencing phase................ Ok let's say you murdered someone, and you are charged for murdering someone, but then the phase of the sentencing determined next is to why you murdered someone right ?? So the message that is sent is that you are charged of course for murdering someone, and then you are charged with a hate crime that lays out exactly why you murdered the person if falls into the category (2 charges). This 2nd phase is meant to send the message to others that you best not bring harm to some one in the form of a hate crime, and if you do so being based on something as ridiculous as some one's skin color, then you are going to wish that you were not that stupid as to do such an ignorant thing as that. So you are charged with murder, and then the hate crime penalty phase if proven adds to the charge in which is meant to send a message from the justice system that you best not do something that idiotic in your life, and if you do the penalty is very high for it.

And my point is that it is NOT worse than murdering someone for any other reason.

 

[ElmerMudd]

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.

You are one sick SOB.
You are lost in the theoretical and do not have a grasp of reality.

 

[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.

You are one sick SOB.
You are lost in the theoretical and do not have a grasp of reality.

How is he sick? WTH? I totally agree as do a lot of other people. No one should be charged with a hate crime. Hate crime legislation is like a form of thought control, and a crime is a crime. No "special victim" status should be granted. Then we are not "equal" anymore.

 

[Tilly]

Hate crime law is like thought crime law. It's way too presumptuous.

You don't understand how they work.

If there is substantial evidence, testimony, confession, that the pig-fucker racist was motivated by his own ignorant hate, then the statute applies.

So? What is the difference between someone who murders a person because they "felt like it" and someone who murders someone because they are a racist? The end result is the same, and one is not worse than the other.

. Ok I will try this one.. Just to be fair right... It's not that the crime of murder is any different all due to the various reasons that it was comitted, but what is different or an add to the penalty found in the law's pertaining to hate crimes is the message that it sends upon the sentencing phase................ Ok let's say you murdered someone, and you are charged for murdering someone, but then the phase of the sentencing determined next is to why you murdered someone right ?? So the message that is sent is that you are charged of course for murdering someone, and then you are charged with a hate crime that lays out exactly why you murdered the person if falls into the category (2 charges). This 2nd phase is meant to send the message to others that you best not bring harm to some one in the form of a hate crime, and if you do so being based on something as ridiculous as someone's skin color, then you are going to wish that you were not that stupid as to do such an ignorant thing as that. So you are charged with murder, and then the hate crime penalty phase if proven adds to the charge in which is meant to send a message from the justice system that you best not do something that idiotic in your life, and if you do the penalty is very high for it.

There is no evidence that extra time for 'hate crimes' acts as a deterrent any more than the regular sentences do, AFAIK.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Ok I will try this one.. Just to be fair right... It's not that the crime of murder is any different all due to the various reasons that it was comitted, but what is different or an add to the penalty found in the law's pertaining to hate crimes is the message that it sends upon the sentencing phase................ Ok let's say you murdered someone, and you are charged for murdering someone, but then the phase of the sentencing determined next is to why you murdered someone right ?? So the message that is sent is that you are charged of course for murdering someone, and then you are charged with a hate crime that lays out exactly why you murdered the person if falls into the category (2 charges). This 2nd phase is meant to send the message to others that you best not bring harm to some one in the form of a hate crime, and if you do so being based on something as ridiculous as some one's skin color, then you are going to wish that you were not that stupid as to do such an ignorant thing as that. So you are charged with murder, and then the hate crime penalty phase if proven adds to the charge in which is meant to send a message from the justice system that you best not do something that idiotic in your life, and if you do the penalty is very high for it.

It's what I said earlier. Government gives more protection (through sentencing) for some people than others.

So if somebody kills me, that's too bad, but if they kill my black neighbor because he's black, then we really need to send a stronger message to people that would murder him than people that would want to murder people like me? We're both dead. Shouldn't we just be sending the strong message to both murderers instead of just one?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

There is no evidence that extra time for 'hate crimes' acts as a deterrent any more than the regular sentences do, AFAIK.

No? Then why have it in the first place?