🌟 Exclusive 2024 Prime Day Deals! 🌟

Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁

Why do the right struggle with the concept of hate crime ?


This is the argument -

If you are murdered then you are dead. The motivation is immaterial.

Which on the face of it is true. But incredibly simplistic and reflecting of a very limited view of the world.

Lets look at two murders and explain why it matters.

Murder 1 - Fred and Jim fall out over a business deal or a girl or a parking spot. Fred exercises his 2nd amendment right and blows Jims head off.

Murder 2 - Jim, a black guy, is walking through a "white" neighbourhood and is spotted by Fred. Fred is immediately alarmed and exercises his 2nd amendment right and blows Jims head off. Jim isnt doing anything, he is just the wrong person in the wrong place.

Which is the worse murder ?

Of course the 2nd one is the worst due to the randomness of the act. Murder 1 happened as a result of a specific set of circumstances that would be difficult to replicate. Murder 2 could happen at any time just because Fred hates black folks.

Im not sure if I can make it any simpler for you straw sucking shit kickers.
Why do the right struggle with the concept of hate crime ?
The better and far more obvious question that should be asked often is:
Why does the Left pretend that crime committed by dark people should be the least of our worry despite the fact that more than 50% of violent crime is committed by the minority / dark people?

“Major Findings
• Police and the justice system are not biased against minorities.
Crime Rates
• Blacks are seven times more likely than people of other races to commit mur- der, and eight times more likely to commit robbery.
• When blacks commit crimes of violence, they are nearly three times more likely than non-blacks to use a gun, and more than twice as likely to use a knife.
• Hispanics commit violent crimes at roughly three times the white rate, and Asians commit violent crimes at about one quarter the white rate.
• The single best indicator of violent crime levels in an area is the percentage of the population that is black and Hispanic.
Interracial Crime
• Of the nearly 770,000 violent interracial crimes committed every year involv- ing blacks and whites, blacks commit 85 percent and whites commit 15 percent.
• Blacks commit more violent crime against whites than against blacks. Forty- five percent of their victims are white, 43 percent are black, and 10 percent are Hispanic. When whites commit violent crime, only three percent of their victims are black.
• Blacks are an estimated 39 times more likely to commit a violent crime against a white than vice versa, and 136 times more likely to commit robbery.
• Blacks are 2.25 times more likely to commit officially-designated hate crimes against whites than vice versa.
Gangs
• Only 10 percent of youth gang members are white.
• Hispanics are 19 times more likely than whites to be members of youth gangs. Blacks are 15 times more likely, and Asians are nine times more likely.
Incarceration
• Between 1980 and 2003 the US incarceration rate more than tripled, from 139 to 482 per 100,000, and the number of prisoners increased from 320,000 to 1.39 million.
• Blacks are seven times more likely to be in prison than whites. Hispanics are three times more likely.
likely.
If New York City were all white, the murder rate would drop by 91 percent, the robbery rate by 81 percent, and the shootings rate by 97 percent.
• In an all-white Chicago, murder would decline 90 percent, rape by 81 percent, and robbery by 90 percent.

You rely on skin colour as your sole indicator. That is pretty laughable.

How do you have an intelligent, meaningful discussion and address criminality without laying all the common denominators on the table?
We are intelligent beings you know.
 
are you saying to hate something or someone is a crime???
I'm saying since we can't make it a crime before someone kills someone because of it. We should at least make it an enhancement to add deterrence.
thats pretty stupid when murder is already against the law and carries the highest sentence and people still do it,,

youre not fooling anyone,, we all know its a bullshit POV meant to create more division,,,
 

This is the argument -

If you are murdered then you are dead. The motivation is immaterial.

Which on the face of it is true. But incredibly simplistic and reflecting of a very limited view of the world.

Lets look at two murders and explain why it matters.

Murder 1 - Fred and Jim fall out over a business deal or a girl or a parking spot. Fred exercises his 2nd amendment right and blows Jims head off.

Murder 2 - Jim, a black guy, is walking through a "white" neighbourhood and is spotted by Fred. Fred is immediately alarmed and exercises his 2nd amendment right and blows Jims head off. Jim isnt doing anything, he is just the wrong person in the wrong place.

Which is the worse murder ?

Of course the 2nd one is the worst due to the randomness of the act. Murder 1 happened as a result of a specific set of circumstances that would be difficult to replicate. Murder 2 could happen at any time just because Fred hates black folks.

Im not sure if I can make it any simpler for you straw sucking shit kickers.


So you believe that committing a murder is the way an individual exercises his or her 2nd Amendment right? Rhetorical question, you have absolutely zero concept of what it means to exercise that right...


As to your ridiculously over simplified effort to "school" us Americans about what constitutes a hate crime, I fairly certain that there is not one among us who needed now, or will ever need, your help understanding what a hate crime is.

I'm not sure if I can make it any simpler for you, you dentally challenged pillock, but I'll try...

Bugger off.
 
As you pointed out. There are places where hate crimes don't produce murder convictions.
Where are those places? Is double jeopardy okay?
Actually it's separate jeopardy. The USSC explained that under "separate sovereigns"
The USSC explanation is bullshit, but they do have the authority to make such a determination. even if it is bullshit. Like I said in an previous post, the purpose of federal hate crimes is to work around the double jeopardy clause.
 
So you believe that committing a murder is the way an individual exercises his or her 2nd Amendment right? Rhetorical question, you have absolutely zero concept of what it means to exercise that right...
Normally we prevent or discourage criminality by codifying preliminary elements as crimes, allowing early intervention before the commission of a serious crime.

The 2nd amendment removed those preliminary elements, meaning gunman who took his AR-15 into a store in Colorado, couldn't have been stopped, until the moment he killed someone.
 

This is the argument -

If you are murdered then you are dead. The motivation is immaterial.

Which on the face of it is true. But incredibly simplistic and reflecting of a very limited view of the world.

Lets look at two murders and explain why it matters.

Murder 1 - Fred and Jim fall out over a business deal or a girl or a parking spot. Fred exercises his 2nd amendment right and blows Jims head off.

Murder 2 - Jim, a black guy, is walking through a "white" neighbourhood and is spotted by Fred. Fred is immediately alarmed and exercises his 2nd amendment right and blows Jims head off. Jim isnt doing anything, he is just the wrong person in the wrong place.

Which is the worse murder ?

Of course the 2nd one is the worst due to the randomness of the act. Murder 1 happened as a result of a specific set of circumstances that would be difficult to replicate. Murder 2 could happen at any time just because Fred hates black folks.

Im not sure if I can make it any simpler for you straw sucking shit kickers.
They have everyone that isn't white, christian, and male, so that can't see a difference.
 
The USSC explanation is bullshit, but they do have the authority to make such a determination. even if it is bullshit. Like I said in an previous post, the purpose of federal hate crimes is to work around the double jeopardy clause.
No more than making bank robbery a federal crime.
 
The same as we should with murderous whitey.
Arrest, prosecute, imprison.

Excellent! I don't remember many blacks being charged with or convicted of hate crimes.
Maybe I should pay closer attention?

Why is this so complicated for you?

Liberal idiocy really isn't too complicated.
 
You realize that if a muslim kills an "infidel" that would be a hate crime under the statute.

Surely you would be in favor of that.
NOPE!!!

murder is already illegal,, thats enough for me,,
Are you similarly against the "terrorism" laws? Since murder is already illegal.
thats changing the subject,, but since you asked could you be more specific as to which law you are talking about,,

keep in mind terrorism is politically based not racial,,,
 
Totalitarians filth such as Tainted Tommy aren't content just to have government punish people for behavior. His kind want government to have the power to punish people for thoughts, feeling, and opinions; which is what “hate crime”* is all about.

* Or “crimethink”, as George Orwell called it.
Because when you foster hate and prejudice, that motivates people to commit crimes they otherwise would not do. It's why the degree of murder is based on why not what.

And hate is premeditated.

yeah no. The same argument can be made for any type of crime. If greed is the motivation for crime we should have greed crime, no?

Hate crimes are also obliviously not applied equally. Punish the behavior, but give some leniency to crimes of passion.
 
Last edited:
when a black guy attacks a police officer with a knife or hand gun and the officer drops him with his service weapon . is that racism?
It depends on the circumstances. Such as we've seen where a black guy was 20-30 feet away from the officer with a knife, or a pipe or other close distance weapon. And the officer chose to use deadly force far before it was warranted.
I dont know if you have seen reports where many police departments require that in a situation where a person they are trying to detain is armed with a knife , they must maintain a minimum distance of 20 ft for their own safety. the suspect can move very fast and reach the officer in a matter of seconds. if the suspect charges the officer with the knife the officer is justified in firing his weapon. and another thing the officer is not required to stop the charging individual with a disabling shot, like a shot to a leg. wounded people can still continue charging. officers once they shoot,they shoot to kill to defend their own lives
 

This is the argument -

If you are murdered then you are dead. The motivation is immaterial.

Which on the face of it is true. But incredibly simplistic and reflecting of a very limited view of the world.

Lets look at two murders and explain why it matters.

Murder 1 - Fred and Jim fall out over a business deal or a girl or a parking spot. Fred exercises his 2nd amendment right and blows Jims head off.

Murder 2 - Jim, a black guy, is walking through a "white" neighbourhood and is spotted by Fred. Fred is immediately alarmed and exercises his 2nd amendment right and blows Jims head off. Jim isnt doing anything, he is just the wrong person in the wrong place.

Which is the worse murder ?

Of course the 2nd one is the worst due to the randomness of the act. Murder 1 happened as a result of a specific set of circumstances that would be difficult to replicate. Murder 2 could happen at any time just because Fred hates black folks.

Im not sure if I can make it any simpler for you straw sucking shit kickers.


Is Jim a black guy in Murder 1?
He might be. It doesnt really matter in this instance. Fred might be a black man in Murder 1,again it doesnt really matter in this instance.

Sure it does if Jim's a black guy the murder could be charged as a hate crime.
Nope, not at all.
Why is it a hate crime ? They fell out over an issue not over skin colour. You misunderstand the basic nature of a hate crime.

You misspelled color, ignoramus.
 

This is the argument -

If you are murdered then you are dead. The motivation is immaterial.

Which on the face of it is true. But incredibly simplistic and reflecting of a very limited view of the world.

Lets look at two murders and explain why it matters.

Murder 1 - Fred and Jim fall out over a business deal or a girl or a parking spot. Fred exercises his 2nd amendment right and blows Jims head off.

Murder 2 - Jim, a black guy, is walking through a "white" neighbourhood and is spotted by Fred. Fred is immediately alarmed and exercises his 2nd amendment right and blows Jims head off. Jim isnt doing anything, he is just the wrong person in the wrong place.

Which is the worse murder ?

Of course the 2nd one is the worst due to the randomness of the act. Murder 1 happened as a result of a specific set of circumstances that would be difficult to replicate. Murder 2 could happen at any time just because Fred hates black folks.

Im not sure if I can make it any simpler for you straw sucking shit kickers.


Is Jim a black guy in Murder 1?
He might be. It doesnt really matter in this instance. Fred might be a black man in Murder 1,again it doesnt really matter in this instance.

Sure it does if Jim's a black guy the murder could be charged as a hate crime.
Nope, not at all.
Why is it a hate crime ? They fell out over an issue not over skin colour. You misunderstand the basic nature of a hate crime.

I fully understand the nature of a hate crime. If Fred at anytime during his falling out with black Jim called him a racist slur or something someone else could view as racist, the murder could be charged as a hate crime. The problem with hate crime laws is they often require other to determine intent and they award unequal justice. In our example if murdered Jim is black Fred could face a harsher sentence. Fred should receive the same sentence for murder regardless of Jim's assigned at birth race.
Every crime requires a third party to establish intent. I suspect it would be difficult to prove in all but the most obvious cases.
But somebody guilty of a hate crime is a greater threat to society than a standard criminal and that should be reflected in any possible parole.

Prove it, wanker? Why are people who commit hate crimes more dangerous? Do have anything to back that up other than your childish emotions?
 

This is the argument -

If you are murdered then you are dead. The motivation is immaterial.

Which on the face of it is true. But incredibly simplistic and reflecting of a very limited view of the world.

Lets look at two murders and explain why it matters.

Murder 1 - Fred and Jim fall out over a business deal or a girl or a parking spot. Fred exercises his 2nd amendment right and blows Jims head off.

Murder 2 - Jim, a black guy, is walking through a "white" neighbourhood and is spotted by Fred. Fred is immediately alarmed and exercises his 2nd amendment right and blows Jims head off. Jim isnt doing anything, he is just the wrong person in the wrong place.

Which is the worse murder ?

Of course the 2nd one is the worst due to the randomness of the act. Murder 1 happened as a result of a specific set of circumstances that would be difficult to replicate. Murder 2 could happen at any time just because Fred hates black folks.

Im not sure if I can make it any simpler for you straw sucking shit kickers.


Is Jim a black guy in Murder 1?
He might be. It doesnt really matter in this instance. Fred might be a black man in Murder 1,again it doesnt really matter in this instance.

Sure it does if Jim's a black guy the murder could be charged as a hate crime.
Nope, not at all.
Why is it a hate crime ? They fell out over an issue not over skin colour. You misunderstand the basic nature of a hate crime.

I fully understand the nature of a hate crime. If Fred at anytime during his falling out with black Jim called him a racist slur or something someone else could view as racist, the murder could be charged as a hate crime. The problem with hate crime laws is they often require other to determine intent and they award unequal justice. In our example if murdered Jim is black Fred could face a harsher sentence. Fred should receive the same sentence for murder regardless of Jim's assigned at birth race.
Every crime requires a third party to establish intent. I suspect it would be difficult to prove in all but the most obvious cases.
But somebody guilty of a hate crime is a greater threat to society than a standard criminal and that should be reflected in any possible parole.

Prove it, wanker? Why are people who commit hate crimes more dangerous? Do have anything to back that up other than your childish emotions?
I really cant break it down into simpler terms for you. I can only communicate by assuming a certain level of intelligence on your part. You are way below that level.
 
I obviously made it too complex for you.
Inanity and Insanity - both often "complex."

Could it be a hate scenario that you chose to talk about a white guy shooting a black guy, when you could just as easily spoke about a black guy shooting white guy ? If you can get off your high horse long enough, you might try thinking about that.

In fact the black on white USA murders would be the more relevant topic.
Here's why >

According to the most recent report of this kind ( the FBI’s Expanded Homicide data from 2018)

1. 8% of the reported murders of Black people were committed by white offenders (234).

2. 15.5% of the murders of white people were committed by Black offenders (514).

Note that blacks are only 13% of the US population, yet they kill twice as many whites, as the reverse.
You are very welcome to switch the races. The principle is the same. The stats that you quote are pretty redundant as you do not stat why these people were murdered. That would determine if they were hate crimes.
No, apparently it suffices for anyone's perceptions to be that a hate crime is one.
You still have to prove that.
You didn't look at your own cited site? "A hate crime is defined as 'Any criminal offence(sic) which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice based on a person's race or perceived race; religion or perceived religion; sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation; disability or perceived disability and any crime motivated by hostility or prejudice against a person who is transgender or perceived to be transgender.'" Quotation from the posted site. Preposterous, granted, but your police.
 

This is the argument -

If you are murdered then you are dead. The motivation is immaterial.

Which on the face of it is true. But incredibly simplistic and reflecting of a very limited view of the world.

Lets look at two murders and explain why it matters.

Murder 1 - Fred and Jim fall out over a business deal or a girl or a parking spot. Fred exercises his 2nd amendment right and blows Jims head off.

Murder 2 - Jim, a black guy, is walking through a "white" neighbourhood and is spotted by Fred. Fred is immediately alarmed and exercises his 2nd amendment right and blows Jims head off. Jim isnt doing anything, he is just the wrong person in the wrong place.

Which is the worse murder ?

Of course the 2nd one is the worst due to the randomness of the act. Murder 1 happened as a result of a specific set of circumstances that would be difficult to replicate. Murder 2 could happen at any time just because Fred hates black folks.

Im not sure if I can make it any simpler for you straw sucking shit kickers.


Is Jim a black guy in Murder 1?
He might be. It doesnt really matter in this instance. Fred might be a black man in Murder 1,again it doesnt really matter in this instance.

Sure it does if Jim's a black guy the murder could be charged as a hate crime.
Nope, not at all.
Why is it a hate crime ? They fell out over an issue not over skin colour. You misunderstand the basic nature of a hate crime.

I fully understand the nature of a hate crime. If Fred at anytime during his falling out with black Jim called him a racist slur or something someone else could view as racist, the murder could be charged as a hate crime. The problem with hate crime laws is they often require other to determine intent and they award unequal justice. In our example if murdered Jim is black Fred could face a harsher sentence. Fred should receive the same sentence for murder regardless of Jim's assigned at birth race.
Every crime requires a third party to establish intent. I suspect it would be difficult to prove in all but the most obvious cases.
But somebody guilty of a hate crime is a greater threat to society than a standard criminal and that should be reflected in any possible parole.

Prove it, wanker? Why are people who commit hate crimes more dangerous? Do have anything to back that up other than your childish emotions?
I really cant break it down into simpler terms for you. I can only communicate by assuming a certain level of intelligence on your part. You are way below that level.

You didn’t even attempt to break anything down though. You said that hate crimes are more dangerous to society than other crimes and didn’t provide amy reasoning or evidence you dunce.
 

Forum List

Back
Top