White Woman Had To Die - Again, Where Is The Outrage?

[GotZoom]

Well, I don't agree with hate crime legislation, but the state regularly gets involved in the state of mind of people who commit crime.

Take murder for example: did the murderer act in a fit of rage, or was the act carefully planned and executed in cold blood?

The difference in judgement could be quite literally the difference between life and death for the convicted murderer.

Doesn't that involve the murderer's state of mind?

Heaven forbid, if someone killed your spouse, would you care what their state of mind was?

 

[Zhukov]

Heaven forbid, if someone killed your spouse, would you care what their state of mind was?

No, I'd only care if it was intentional or not.

But I fail to see what that has to do with anything.

 

[Abbey Normal]

Well, I don't agree with hate crime legislation, but the state regularly gets involved in the state of mind of people who commit crime.

Take murder for example: did the murderer act in a fit of rage, or was the act carefully planned and executed in cold blood?

The difference in judgement could be quite literally the difference between life and death for the convicted murderer.

Doesn't that involve the murderer's state of mind?

While the law does consider state of mind, it is generally to determine intent, premeditation, and/or mental competence to be able to act in support of your own defense and stand trial. The "fit of rage" vs. cold-blooded killing examples you gave, are important insofar as they can determine the presence or lack of premeditation (defined often as "malice aforethought''), a key determination to differentiate between the various degrees of murder, other homicide, and manslaughter. Second degree murder is generally intentional killing without premeditation, like the "fit of rage" you mentioned. These definitions can vary slightly from state to state.

Intention to kill is also required in a murder charge. However, the reason why someone intentionally kills is primarily relevant just to explain their motive for the crime. It helps the prosecutor make her case:

"motive n. in criminal investigation the probable reason a person committed a crime such as jealousy, greed, revenge, or part of a theft. While evidence of a motive may be admissible at trial, proof of motive is not necessary to prove a crime."

Hate crime legislation appears to give the reason a person kills a much larger and I think unnecessary role, for the sole purpose of being able to mete out a more severe punishment, and thereby make some people feel the proper regard is being given to their particular demographic.

 

[dmp]

Just a thought - could 'fit of rage' be argued as 'fit of hate'?

 

[Zhukov]

Hate crime legislation appears to give the reason a person kills a much larger and I think unnecessary role, for the sole purpose of being able to mete out a more severe punishment, and thereby make some people feel the proper regard is being given to their particular demographic.

I understand all that, and I agree.

I'm merely pointing out that the argument that 'hate crime' statutes shouldn't be implemented because the justice system shouldn't get involved with the "state of mind of the perpetrator" is a bad argument because courts get involved in the "state of mind of the perpetrator" regularly, quite absent the pursuit of the prosecution of a 'hate crime' to begin with.

All I'm saying is if one wishes to get rid of hate-crime legislation one will have to conceive a better argument.

 

[GotZoom]

No, I'd only care if it was intentional or not.

But I fail to see what that has to do with anything.

Ths point is that if someone should hurt a member of my family, I don't care if it was a fit of rage, fit of hate, diminished capacity, insanity, or.........whatever other phrase or word they can come up with

I want them to fry.

 

[Zhukov]

Ths point is that if someone should hurt a member of my family, I don't care if it was a fit of rage, fit of hate, diminished capacity, insanity, or.........whatever other phrase or word they can come up with

I want them to fry.

But why did you ask that question in response to my post? I'm talking about the justice system. I am not the justice system.

 

[Trigg]

Just a thought - could 'fit of rage' be argued as 'fit of hate'?

A lawyer could probably argue that if the person was yelling racial slurs.

A lot of people seem to think only white people can be racist so it will be interresting to see if this man is tried for a hate crime.

 

[dmp]

A lawyer could probably argue that if the person was yelling racial slurs.

A lot of people seem to think only white people can be racist so it will be interresting to see if this man is tried for a hate crime.

There is NO way in HELL the NAACP would let that happen.

 

[GotZoom]

Well, I don't agree with hate crime legislation, but the state regularly gets involved in the state of mind of people who commit crime.

Take murder for example: did the murderer act in a fit of rage, or was the act carefully planned and executed in cold blood?

The difference in judgement could be quite literally the difference between life and death for the convicted murderer.

Doesn't that involve the murderer's state of mind?

This was your post I responded to. My question was to your opinion...your thoughts about your post.

I, personally, hate the idea that someone can be found innocent because when they were a child, their father beat them. Or that they ate something that didn't agree with them. Or they had repressed memories from their ancestors being slaves, etc.

 

[freeandfun1]

Well, I don't agree with hate crime legislation, but the state regularly gets involved in the state of mind of people who commit crime.

Take murder for example: did the murderer act in a fit of rage, or was the act carefully planned and executed in cold blood?

The difference in judgement could be quite literally the difference between life and death for the convicted murderer.

Doesn't that involve the murderer's state of mind?

A good example would be "crimes of passion". In many states, if a man or woman catches their spouse in bed with another person, they will likely get a weaker sentence if they kill them both while they lie there. In Texas, crimes of passion are sometimes acquitted all together.

 

[Zhukov]

This was your post I responded to. My question was to your opinion...your thoughts about your post.

Alright, in that case, if someone murdered someone in my family I would kill them, kill their family, burn down their house, and eat their dog.....

 

[freeandfun1]

...and eat their dog.....

Dog doesn't taste that great... you might want to skip that idea.

 

[Zhukov]

Dog doesn't taste that great... you might want to skip that idea.

...and spite. It'll go down.

 

[Abbey Normal]

Just a thought - could 'fit of rage' be argued as 'fit of hate'?

Depending on the facts of the particular case, I'd say it could be synonymous, but it doesn't have to be.

 

[freeandfun1]

...and spite. It'll go down.

The spite might make it palatable, but the mustard ain't gonna help much. Trust me... I know!

I've had dog maybe five or six times in my life and I hated it every time. I have to admit though, I can't help but laugh when they bring out the ribs that look like they came off a Toy Terrier! :teeth:

 

[Zhukov]

The spite might make it palatable, but the mustard ain't gonna help much. Trust me... I know!

Don't you know what that is?

That's Cleveland's Famous Bertman Ball Park Mustard! That's the greatest mustard in the universe and anyone who says otherwise is a damned dirty ape!

 

[Abbey Normal]

I understand all that, and I agree.

I'm merely pointing out that the argument that 'hate crime' statutes shouldn't be implemented because the justice system shouldn't get involved with the "state of mind of the perpetrator" is a bad argument because courts get involved in the "state of mind of the perpetrator" regularly, quite absent the pursuit of the prosecution of a 'hate crime' to begin with.

All I'm saying is if one wishes to get rid of hate-crime legislation one will have to conceive a better argument.

And here I thought I had gone to great pains to explain that state of mind regarding the "why" of the killing is not key to the charge. There are different "states of mind", and the defintion of murder, for example, does not require that we plumb the depths of the killer's reasons for the killing. As stated before, intent, malice aforethought, and sanity, are what are legally required. Not motive (see definition in my former post).

So I have to disagree with you that hate crime legislation is a mere extension of current law as I believe you have indicated. If you want penalties for hate crimes to be more severe than other (non-hate?!) murder penalties, you may need another reason than the courts already get involved with state of mind.

Hate crime:
"A crime motivated by prejudice against a social group"

"Hate against people because of their colour, race, religion or ethnic origin. In these kinds of crimes, the act of spreading hate is against the law."

"What is really being punished, as [critics] see it, is a criminal's thoughts, however objectionable they may be. The actions - incitement, vandalism, assault, murder - are already against the law." — Clyde Haberman

In the on-line magazine Slate, Eve Gerber writes, "The definition of a hate crime varies. Twenty-one states include mental and physical disability in their lists. Twenty-two states include sexual orientation. Three states and the District of Columbia impose tougher penalties for crimes based on political affiliation."

These definitions and points indicate to me that there is a lot of subjectivity to the enforcement of this legislation. I do agree that it is wise to provide a strong deterrent to these type of crimes (painted swatiskas on synagogues, burning crosses, dragging a black man behind your truck, etc.), because they have a tendency to cause even more fear and suspicion between ethnic and social groups. I am not sure that adding on penalties based on the perpetrator's motivation is the way.

 

[hylandrdet]

Dude, there is 5 to 6 times more white in this country than blacks. If blacks killed hypothetically 100,00 people a year and white killed 110,000 people a year. Your logic claims that white are murders and blacks are not, even though blacks on average kill 5 times more than whites. Learn to understand population distribution variation, your lack of intelligence is showing.

Dude, that's not my my point; my point is YOU'RE ARE MORE LIKELY TO BE KILLED BY A MEMBER OF YOUR OWN RACE and you should NOT worry so much about a black man killing you.

Interracial violence, contrary to paranoid beliefs, are rare crimes, making up less than 2% of violent crimes committed in this country. The reason why it seems so big is because everytime it does happen, the extreme conservative (black on white) and liberal (white on black) sides of media tries to turn it into the next 9/11.

Now, if you were to break down each and every Interracial violent crime, you're find that vast majority of these circumstances fall under the catagory I like to call the "3-Ds"

1. Domestic violence- A black man getting into a fight with his white wife or girlfriend

2. Drugs- A black man fighting with a white man when a drug deal goes bad

3. Dumb behavior- A fight breaking out because someone said or did something stupid while at a social gathering. More often than not, race is not the factor because such fights usually involves interracial social groups (ie a group of 3 white guys, a black guy and a hispanic gets into it with a group of 2 white guys, 2 black guys and an asian).

All of these incidents are recorded along with the very much rare "black on white" hate crime.

So let's review...

If you're not not on drugs, if you're not hangging around black neighborhoods and you're not in a black/white interracial relationship, you are more likey to be killed by lightning than you will at the hands of a black person.

Trust me as former Detroiter, this I know to be true.

Geez, I hate it when I have to break things down for simple people.

 

[Markainion]

Dude, that's not my my point; my point is YOU'RE ARE MORE LIKELY TO BE KILLED BY A MEMBER OF YOUR OWN RACE and you should NOT worry so much about a black man killing you.

Interracial violence, contrary to paranoid beliefs, are rare crimes, making up less than 2% of violent crimes committed in this country. The reason why it seems so big is because everytime it does happen, the extreme conservative (black on white) and liberal (white on black) sides of media tries to turn it into the next 9/11.

Now, if you were to break down each and every Interracial violent crime, you're find that vast majority of these circumstances fall under the catagory I like to call the "3-Ds"

1. Domestic violence- A black man getting into a fight with his white wife or girlfriend

2. Drugs- A black man fighting with a white man when a drug deal goes bad

3. Dumb behavior- A fight breaking out because someone said or did something stupid while at a social gathering. More often than not, race is not the factor because such fights usually involves interracial social groups (ie a group of 3 white guys, a black guy and a hispanic gets into it with a group of 2 white guys, 2 black guys and an asian).

All of these incidents are recorded along with the very much rare "black on white" hate crime.

So let's review...

If you're not not on drugs, if you're not hangging around black neighborhoods and you're not in a black/white interracial relationship, you are more likey to be killed by lightning than you will at the hands of a black person.

Trust me as former Detroiter, this I know to be true.

Geez, I hate it when I have to break things down for simple people.

My Original post statistics:

Statistics from 1976 to 2002 --
·86% of white victims were killed by whites
·94% of black victims were killed by blacks

Does any ware in this data, indicated that whites are not likely to be killed by whites and blacks not more likely to be killed by blacks. I was just pointing out that it was more likely for a white to be killed by a non-white than blacks are.

Simple data that’s all, I never made a claim that African Americans were conducting a racial war, but there is also no such attacks going on by whites against blacks either. The KKK and white supremacist aren’t doing any serious amounts of killing against minorities to justify hate crime legislation, there mostly just idiot whites that pretty much every white person will side with blacks against.

Black on Black on violence is out of control though, and has been for a very long time, and African American Politicians seem to care far more about a small percentage of white killing blacks than the much larger portion of blacks killing blacks.

As for the assumption your making about me, I have known three close black work acquaintances in my life, one I considered a good friend at the time. One was a very good sales person, one was a hard working family man from Chicago, and the was a somewhat nerdy, virgin, mid- twenty film student that wanted to be an actor, he did more than anything to destroy any racial stereo types that I might have had.