Isn’t All Crime a Hate Crime?

obamasigningToday, President Obama signed into law the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act.  This bill was buried in the Defense Appropriations bill. 

A logical American, or any breathing human being for that matter, would wonder why this was not pushed forward on its own merits.  Why was this buried in a $680 billion defense appropriations bill?   I’ll tell you why, it would have never passed otherwise.

From the USA Today:  

The new law basically expands existing hate-crime protections to outlaw attacks based on sexual orientation or gender, in addition to race, color, religion or national origin. 

In a later ceremony devoted to the new law, Obama told supporters, “No one in America should ever be afraid to walk down the street holding the hand of the person they love.” He cited statistics that in these past 10 years, there have been more than 12,000 hate crimes based on sexual orientation.

“We will never know how many incidents were never reported at all,” Obama said.

Opponents called the hate-crimes bill unnecessary, noting that Shepard’s and Byrd’s attackers were convicted in state criminal courts. Some critics objected to the inclusion of hate-crimes legislation in a defense budget bill.

“The president has used his position as commander-in-chief to advance a radical social agenda, when he should have used it to advance legislation that would unequivocally support our troops,” said U.S. Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., chairman of the House Republican Conference. 

Pence also argued that the law could be used to curb free speech rights, such as with religions that consider homosexuality a sin.    

According to an AP story, “The hate crimes measure came as part of legislation (defense appropriation bill) that Obama also touted for other reasons: a crackdown on careless military spending.”   How about just cutting down on that spending the normal way and not including unnecessary legislation unrelated to a bill meant to fund the military efforts?  I realize this is the way things are done in Washington, but isn’t that part of the problem?

The last time I checked hate was hate no matter what the person looks like or his sexual orientation.  A crime is a crime and tagging it with some arbitrary title is not only unnecessary but subject to interpretation by the legal system.  In other words, “I’m going to read your mind and determine if you are a racist homophobic loser.”  Ridiculous.

Scenarios: What if a Muslim kills a Christian because he is not Muslim?  What if a black man kills a white man just for being white?  What if a homosexual kills a heterosexual for not being gay?  Far fetched and idiotic maybe, but have we thought of these scenarios or just the obvious ones?  If a hate crime can be attached to the cases expressed in the various news stories why not my examples? 

No good can come from this and is a travesty to the justice system. 

Of course, this is just my opinion.

Rob’s Rant

Advertisements

28 Responses

  1. No, some crimes are for financial gain. Hate has a specific legal term. To meet the definition of hate there must be extenuating circumstances, such as belonging to a hate group, or other information that would lead a jury to believe it that the act was targeting a person for their color, creed, or sexual orientation. For example, killing a Jew or a Muslim because they don’t believe in Jesus would qualify.

    Of course, you knew that already before you posted your entry.

  2. The point of the post is why there is such a thing as a “hate crime” in the first place. All crime is hate no matter what group or extenuating circumstances are involved. It is an oxymoron to say otherwise.

    For example, killing a Jew or a Muslim because they don’t believe in Jesus would qualify

    This is a crime, nothing more. It’s called murder and is punishable by whatever the state statute calls for with that crime.

    If this were to come to a vote on its own merits it would have never passed. It is cowardice to insert something this major in a totally unrelated bill – I don’t care who is introducing it. What a farce.

  3. The legal definition of hate is a crime intended to intimidate an entire class of people of their civil rights. That is different than a specific murder.

    How are those two types of crimes not inherently different?

    Today we provide specific additional sanctions for crimes against police. Your argument is why isn’t all crime just crime, but clearly we already have special circumstances.

    fyi, I favor these types of additional punishment, both for race crimes as well as crimes against law enforcement. Apparently you do not.

    • The legal definition of hate is a crime intended to intimidate an entire class of people of their civil rights. That is different than a specific murder.

      How are those two types of crimes not inherently different?

      I think that the entire premise is ridiculous to punish someone for dislike of another group of individuals. It is redundant and unnecessary.

      fyi, I favor these types of additional punishment, both for race crimes as well as crimes against law enforcement. Apparently you do not.

      Crimes against police and crimes against a specific racial groups is like comparing apples to oranges. I am not surprised you favor “special” punishment.

  4. It isn’t dislike, it is intimidation against an entire class of people.

    You can attempt to be dismissive through use of terms like dislike when the real word is hate, and you can be dismissive about crime but the reality is that the crimes are murder, aggravated assault, and rape – all felonies.

    I doubt you can name the special circumstances of crimes already in the books. I noted one. It is only because you do not know the details of laws when it comes to special protections that you can say you think that intimidation against communities is not necessary.

    You note that comparing crimes against police and crimes against a specific racial groups is like comparing apples to oranges. Earlier you said that crime is crime. Which is it going to be?

    I have no idea what you mean by adding quotes to “special” but I would bet it reveals something about your personality.

  5. It isn’t dislike, it is intimidation against an entire class of people. You can attempt to be dismissive through use of terms like dislike when the real word is hate, and you can be dismissive about crime but the reality is that the crimes are murder, aggravated assault, and rape – all felonies.

    Hate – dislike – whatever you choose. All semantics Mike.

    Also, I was not dismissive of crimes – only the designation of crimes as Hate Crimes.

    I doubt you can name the special circumstances of crimes already in the books. I noted one. It is only because you do not know the details of laws when it comes to special protections that you can say you think that intimidation against communities is not necessary.

    ??? I really don’t have to as I referenced the new “Hate Crimes” law that was passed. I don’t think special protections are necessary. Enforce the current laws and punishments.

    You note that comparing crimes against police and crimes against a specific racial groups is like comparing apples to oranges. Earlier you said that crime is crime. Which is it going to be?

    Again, apples and oranges. Favoring special treatment because of “hate” of some racial or other group (normal citizens) is not needed. Police are not part of a special racial, ethnic or religious group. Not part of the argument.

    I have no idea what you mean by adding quotes to “special” but I would bet it reveals something about your personality.

    Yep, probably so.

  6. A murder is a crime against an individual. A hate crime murder is a murder plus an intent to intimidate a whole class of people.

    You are soft on crime if you intend to let the second part of the crime go unpunished. It’s only because you don’t want gays protected.

    Further, you can’t seriously believe that hate and dislike are all semantics. That’s like calling the holocaust an accidental shooting.

    You can’t name special circumstances in the law where legislation has defined additional punishment, and you can’t include police because they aren’t in a special class. Both are extremely germane to the subject.

    Any time a legislature sets special conditions, it is to identify how much more criminal an act is when applied to a specific class of individuals. Women harmed by their husbands and s/o, family intimidation, witness protection, children, pregnant women, killing more than one person in a crime, unusually cruel crime, law enforcement, and the list goes on.

    To you one murder is just like the next. And you want us to vote conservatives back into office?

  7. A murder is a crime against an individual. A hate crime murder is a murder plus an intent to intimidate a whole class of people.

    I contend that the whole idea is bunk. Crime is crime and should be punished accordingly.

    You are soft on crime if you intend to let the second part of the crime go unpunished. It’s only because you don’t want gays protected.

    That is a naïve statement. If crimes are punished accordingly why does it matter if the perpetrator is a racist or a homophobe? It doesn’t.
    As far as not wanting protecting gays, this is a straw man argument. This is possibly the most ridiculous comment you have made on this blog. So now I’m to assume you are a gay hate merchant? I expected better of you.

    Further, you can’t seriously believe that hate and dislike are all semantics. That’s like calling the holocaust an accidental shooting.

    Again, a ridiculous statement on your part. So now I’m a Jew hater?

    You can’t name special circumstances in the law where legislation has defined additional punishment, and you can’t include police because they aren’t in a special class. Both are extremely germane to the subject.

    You brought up the cop angle, not me.

    Any time a legislature sets special conditions, it is to identify how much more criminal an act is when applied to a specific class of individuals. Women harmed by their husbands and s/o, family intimidation, witness protection, children, pregnant women, killing more than one person in a crime, unusually cruel crime, law enforcement, and the list goes on.

    Again, the current laws cover crime. Special intent is a subjective matter and not a legal matter.

    To you one murder is just like the next.

    Yes. Murder is murder as I have stated.

    And you want us to vote conservatives back into office?

    This has nothing to do with the post, but I’ll answer that anyway. Yes I would like a conservative in the Oval office, but I don’t think we’ve had one of those for quite some time.

  8. I contend, and you keep ignoring, the fact that some crimes have additional aggravating factors. I noted 7 or more such factors. For some reason you favor being lenient (as in ignoring the entire matter) for crimes against race, religion, and sexual orientation.

    I find that extremely odd. Why would you, a guy who cares about the future of America, law, and society, want to ignore certain crimes? You are willing to punish the murder or assault, but not the crime against the community.

    I contend that the possible reasons is that you either don’t care about those communities or you don’t understand why they feel especially threatened. When I said “It’s only because you don’t want gays protected” I was specifically referring to idea that don’t care about those communities.

    You can throw terms like gay hate merchant, but that is a lame attempt at an insult. Typical of you to devolve into insults. I’ll note them for your record.

    My analogy of the holocaust to accidental shooting was aimed at your debasing and otherwise ignoring the true nature of hate crimes. You have certainly debased hate crimes into mere dislike. You called the difference semantics. It has nothing to do with being a Jew hater. To think so makes me think you really (really, really) missed the point.

    You call special intent a subjective matter. A cursory look at the laws in your state will reveal that there are laws that define and call for special punishment entire classes of special intent crimes. You will call it an insult if I tell you that you can look these up for yourself, but look up these for yourself is just a fact.

    In my opinion you also really (need I repeat really again) missed the point when I concluded with “And you want us to vote conservatives back into office?” By it I meant that your stated softness on crime (not willing to prosecute specific horrific intent) and your dismissal of threatened groups was sufficiently uncaring as to ask the question of whether we should have as office holders people who think along your lines. I didn’t mean the Oval office. I meant state office.

  9. I contend, and you keep ignoring, the fact that some crimes have additional aggravating factors. I noted 7 or more such factors. For some reason you favor being lenient (as in ignoring the entire matter) for crimes against race, religion, and sexual orientation.

    You noted several groups that supposedly need protecting. I contend, again never ignoring, that everyone is protected with the current laws. How is it lenient to ask for the current laws to be enforced? You have degraded the conversation into some idea that this is lenient.

    I find that extremely odd. Why would you, a guy who cares about the future of America, law, and society, want to ignore certain crimes? You are willing to punish the murder or assault, but not the crime against the community.

    I find it extremely odd, that you are on the side of extra punishment on top of the already prosecuted crime. Double punishment for evil thoughts. Yeah, that’s a good idea.

    I contend that the possible reasons is that you either don’t care about those communities or you don’t understand why they feel especially threatened. When I said “It’s only because you don’t want gays protected” I was specifically referring to idea that don’t care about those communities.

    Again, current laws protect everyone regardless of their “group.”

    You can throw terms like gay hate merchant, but that is a lame attempt at an insult. Typical of you to devolve into insults. I’ll note them for your record.

    Just taking your typical tactic in these forums in extending things beyond their logical conclusion. If you think it’s an insult then that is your problem.

    My analogy of the holocaust to accidental shooting was aimed at your debasing and otherwise ignoring the true nature of hate crimes. You have certainly debased hate crimes into mere dislike. You called the difference semantics. It has nothing to do with being a Jew hater. To think so makes me think you really (really, really) missed the point.

    It was an illustrative comment of the idiocy of your comment regarding Jews. I get your point, I just think you are way off the mark.

    You call special intent a subjective matter. A cursory look at the laws in your state will reveal that there are laws that define and call for special punishment entire classes of special intent crimes. You will call it an insult if I tell you that you can look these up for yourself, but look up these for yourself is just a fact.

    Bless me with your knowledge o great one.

    In my opinion you also really (need I repeat really again) missed the point when I concluded with “And you want us to vote conservatives back into office?” By it I meant that your stated softness on crime (not willing to prosecute specific horrific intent) and your dismissal of threatened groups was sufficiently uncaring as to ask the question of whether we should have as office holders people who think along your lines. I didn’t mean the Oval office. I meant state office.

    Fine, Oval office, state office, whatever. Equating conservatives to softness on crime is ridiculous and there is no evidence of such. I’m sure if I cared to delve further I could find the opposite.

  10. There are a few points of clarification that need to be addressed. You are under the misconception that a hate crimes is a thought crime.

    Proving a hate crime is pretty much like proving first degree murder. You have to show that the target was selected because they are in a protected class and/or that racial or other slurs were used during the commission of the crime.

    Attacking a synagogue or a mosque pretty much defines a hate crime. Attacking a black church or a people at a gay bar would also.

    No one is suggesting for a minute that this is merely a thought crime prosecution. You may have heard or read that in some radio talk show or blog, an if so they have misguided you and their listeners.

    You asked about why I claim that there are two crime, and that you only want to punish just one. I call that being soft on crime, giving a person a walk on the second crime. I think you would agree that if a black church or a synagogue were bombed, many more members than just the affected places of worship would feel threatened. It shouldn’t just be the damage to the building, or any deaths that may occur. The loss to the group is also a significant crime.

    I want to correct the perception that I degraded the conversation. I am raising the conversation to include the entirety of the crimes.

    A great example of special prosecution is committing a crime with a gun. According to your theory of law, murder is murder, so use of a gun to facilitate the act shouldn’t matter. It matters for all kinds of reasons, not the least of which is you can indiscriminately kill someone from far away.

    To you, it’s just another murder.

    I am glad to see that you finally get my illustrative point. I do think you missed it completely before, or you wouldn’t have asked if I thought you were a Jew hater. I am sorry if you do find this para insulting, but if you do, apply the same advice and feedback you offered: If you think it’s an insult then that is your problem. Its that sort of thing that tells me you can throw it, but maybe you can’t take it.

    While on the topic of you not getting you noted, and I quote from your reply, “You noted several groups that supposedly need protecting.” Not supposedly. They are protected today in Missouri (your state), Illinois (your neighbor) and about 30 others. The law already has protected groups, the ones I noted.

    I don’t know how you missed that, but you did.

    I think you are under some other serious misconceptions about the bill. You ask what if a white person is killed by a black person for simply being white, or a Muslim kills a Christian, or a homosexual kills a heterosexual.

    The law specifies killing someone with a defined hate based on race, religion, and sexual orientation. Under the hate crime laws prosecutors would have to charge those acts as hate crimes when the evidence shows intent based on race, religion, sexual orientation.

    Matthew Shepard’s murder was horrific and brutal. His crime was being gay. You don’t think we should as a society move to stop this kind of horrific crime?

  11. I think we’re rehashing the same thing back and forth so I’ll save some time here.

    No misconception here. Crime is crime and murder is murder.

    So you are really saying that if a white man kills a black man because of “hate” it’s not just murder, it’s murder murder. Do you hear how idotic that sounds?

    All kinds of horrific things happen to people every day. The stuff that happened to Matthew Shepard was horrific, but it was still murder. The people that committed the act were punished. Same with James Byrd. Same with thousands of other cases. It was a crime, it was punished, end of story.

    I missed nothing but I think you have missed common sense.

  12. In the example you drew, it is not because of “hate,” it is because it was planned as a murder to intimidate a group of people.

    The law may make more sense if it added intent to intimidate as an aggravating circumstance.

    These crimes are horrific because the victims are chosen at random. You go to a synagogue and they kill you in front of it, as it recently occurred in Los Angeles, never mind that you worked your entire life to make your family safe.

    Your replies are replete with insults. I was hoping you had the hupspa to have an exchange of ideas without resorting to phrases like “missed common sense.”

    I hope that the reason you don’t like “hate” crimes is because you think hate is intent rather than intimidation. I could draw am inference from other posts of you (see Rush) where you believe that any discussion by Al Sharpton on race is automatically a race fate merchant.

    Not by the conservative frame of mind represented by your position, but I do think that adding hate as defined by the law to certain crimes is a place where conservatives, liberals, and the center could find common ground.

    Maybe.

  13. In the example you drew, it is not because of “hate,” it is because it was planned as a murder to intimidate a group of people.

    Again, murder is murder. Under current laws if it is premeditated that is first degree murder. Impulsive murder is second degree or manslaughter.

    The law may make more sense if it added intent to intimidate as an aggravating circumstance.

    I disagree.

    These crimes are horrific because the victims are chosen at random. You go to a synagogue and they kill you in front of it, as it recently occurred in Los Angeles, never mind that you worked your entire life to make your family safe.

    And this matters why? Whether they are chosen at random or as a concerted premeditated effort – it should occur in the same result – incarceration.

    Your replies are replete with insults. I was hoping you had the hupspa to have an exchange of ideas without resorting to phrases like “missed common sense.”

    I forget you have such a thin skin and believe that any dissent to your ideas are insult. I truly believe you have missed common sense on this issue – no insult intended.

    I hope that the reason you don’t like “hate” crimes is because you think hate is intent rather than intimidation. I could draw am inference from other posts of you (see Rush) where you believe that any discussion by Al Sharpton on race is automatically a race fate merchant.

    The reason I don’t like hate crimes is illustrated above and I’m not going to rehash it just for you.

    Not by the conservative frame of mind represented by your position, but I do think that adding hate as defined by the law to certain crimes is a place where conservatives, liberals, and the center could find common ground. Maybe.

    I believe this is totally conservative and logical. Punishing someone again for their intent or thoughts or whatever term one wants to use is ridiculous, especially since the crime is most likely already punished. I have very liberal friends that agree with me on very little that see nothing redeeming in hate crimes legislation. There really is no common ground on this issue.

  14. I don’t know why you think that “intent to intimidate” is not an aggravating circumstance.

    I think you are being soft on crime giving a free pass to criminals who want to intimidate people based on race, orientation, and religion.

  15. I don’t know why you think that “intent to intimidate” is not an aggravating circumstance.

    Because I don’t think it is necessary.

    I think you are being soft on crime giving a free pass to criminals who want to intimidate people based on race, orientation, and religion.

    Just the opposite is true. Punishing someone twice for the same crime because of something like “race, sexual orientation, and religion” is pure drivel in my book.

    Feel free to end this comment string as I will give you the last word.

  16. According to your theory of law, if a criminal rapes and then stabs someone, then they can only be charged with the stabbing. Charging them with rape would be, according to you, pure drivel.

    Now you are really soft on crime.

    The real essence of law is to charge someone for each count of a crime, to punish them for all wrong.

    This law protects all religions, from church burnings to synagogue bombings, to attacks on mosques. According to your theory, victims of hate crimes should just suffer their intimidation quietly. You certainly don’t plan on empathizing.

  17. I’ll break my own rule on further comments (because I can.)

    I have no idea where you get your ideas or how you get to that end, but that in itself is pure drivel. Your comments are ridiculous and have no basis in actual fact. I have outlined my ideals, we have disagreed. I’m certainly not going to empathize with you. I empathize with the victims and the current justice that is set forth. Adding to this with frivolous hate laws is as unnecessary as more gun laws. Enforce the current laws and punish the perpetrators.

  18. why hate crime matters:
    http://www.ocweekly.com/2009-11-26/news/slater-slums-smackdown-huntington-beach-oak-view-barrio/

    10 additional years. Now you know why it matters.

  19. Feeling lonely Mike? Sorry, I’ve been busy with other enthralling activities to post to my own blog. That happens when one has a life.

    10 additional years. Now you know why it matters.

    Again, enforce the laws already there and don’t prosecute because people attacked people from a particular group. I think I’ve covered this already in this post that was started on October 29.

    And no, it doesn’t matter.

  20. And again you don’t care that teh crime is against both the group (a neighborhood) and against an individual. You just want to punish the crime against the individual. You just want to be soft on crime.

    I posted this so your readers will understand.

  21. I think they understand that you are on the wrong end of sanity on this one.

    I think I summed things up well above, but I’ll put it out there again, just for you!

    I have no idea where you get your ideas or how you get to that end, but that in itself is pure drivel. Your comments are ridiculous and have no basis in actual fact. I have outlined my ideals, we have disagreed. I’m certainly not going to empathize with you. I empathize with the victims and the current justice that is set forth. Adding to this with frivolous hate laws is as unnecessary as more gun laws. Enforce the current laws and punish the perpetrators.

    Yup, that’s me, soft on crime.

  22. Your post lacks specificity and logic. Where “I get my ideas” is hardly logic to defend your soft on crime logic.

    My point is quite grounded in fact. There are two victims here: the person stabbed and the community that now has the fear of trouble makers coming down just because they are (in the article I cited) Mexican. Those facts are indisputable.

    Using your logic, you just want to punish the criminal for the crimae against one victim. Letting the criminal go unpunished, worse ignoring the problem, is by definition being lenient, or soft, on crime.

    For some mysterious reason you want to drag gun laws into this.
    This is about a knife hate crime. Let’s stick to these details.

    • Your post lacks specificity and logic. Where “I get my ideas” is hardly logic to defend your soft on crime logic.

      I have no idea where you get the idea of “soft on crime” but it seems to be your current buzzword. Feel free to keep using it.

      My point is quite grounded in fact. There are two victims here: the person stabbed and the community that now has the fear of trouble makers coming down just because they are (in the article I cited) Mexican. Those facts are indisputable.

      Punish the wrongdoers. Punishing them twice is ridiculous.

      Using your logic, you just want to punish the criminal for the crimae against one victim. Letting the criminal go unpunished, worse ignoring the problem, is by definition being lenient, or soft, on crime.

      I want to punish the criminals, period. I don’t want to punish their motives or thoughts, just the crime. That is being tough on crime. Concocting some vacuous “Hate Crimes” garbage just enforces the fact that the current laws have not been utilized to the fullest extent and is more of an indictment of the judicial system than the laws themselves. Get rid of parole. Establish common sense mandatory sentencing. Start frying these animals for their heinous crimes. It’s not rocket science but many are not willing to actually pull the lever.

      For some mysterious reason you want to drag gun laws into this. This is about a knife hate crime. Let’s stick to these details.

      Do you even read the comments? It was meant to be more illustrative for your benefit than related to the link you posted. It really doesn’t really matter to the discussion – knife or gun – it’s all hate, right?

      So, when are you going to get off the fence and create your own blog? You never answer the question when posed. If you feel that people in the blogosphere would value your opinion then put your money where your mouth is Mikey. You seem to have plenty of time on your hands, what’s standing in your way?

  23. In most crimes, criminals get charged with counts, one count each for each crime. If a person uses a gun in a crime, they may get charged with more than one count, one for the crime, another for use of a gun, and so on.

    Each count adds to the length of sentence and describes the severity of the crime.

    Prosecutors are unfamiliar with the concept that you are putting forth that only punishes a criminal for one count and ignores all others on the idea that they should be punished “once.”

    I think most prosecutors would consider ignoring criminal counts as being excessively “soft.” You don’t like the term, but it does accurately describe the effect of your legal theory.

    You have no problem with “counts” being charged against a criminal if they stole a car, had possession of a narcotic, carried a dangerous weapon and intimidates a witness. That would count as 4 or more counts.

    You just happen to have a problem with counting intimidation as a crime when it involves non-whites, non-Christians. I have no idea why, but you’ve gone on for 20 plus replies ineffectively explaining why it is necessary to remove intimidation as a crime.

    There is no thought crime when a person shouts racial epitaphs or anti-gay slurs. It isn’t a hate crime when they have a history of anti-racial or anti-religious activity. Anti-hate legislation is in fact very necessary to stop this type of anti-American activity.

    I am still not convinced of your “legal theory.” I think its just loony Republican politics disguised as a legal theory.

  24. correction: The next to last para should have read

    There is no thought crime when a person shouts racial epitaphs or anti-gay slurs. It isn’t a thought crime when they have a history of anti-racial or anti-religious activity. Anti-hate legislation is in fact very necessary to stop this type of anti-American activity.

  25. In most crimes, criminals get charged with counts, one count each for each crime. If a person uses a gun in a crime, they may get charged with more than one count, one for the crime, another for use of a gun, and so on.

    You are correct. All of those charges are for specific crimes. This is what I meant by prosecuting the crime. Including gun violations and the such is fine in my book as those are separate crimes. Now we have a hate crime to deal with. Whether you yell racial slurs, anti-gay slurs or whatever is immaterial to the case. This is thought and essentially you would be prosecuting someone for their thoughts.

    I think it is ridiculous for someone to have these thoughts and ideas, but we are supposed to be free to have those thoughts in America. If a person wants to be a racial bigot, then so be it. I’ll tell that person that they are wrong thinking and a debate can ensue on the issue. If that same person commits a crime based on those same thoughts, it is not fodder to charge them with a crime. If they committed murder with a gun while violating their parole – three counts. I’m fine with that. I’m not fine with creating a special count for their way of thinking – even if it is the reason they committed the crime.

    Here is a quote from the original post:

    Scenarios: What if a Muslim kills a Christian because he is not Muslim? What if a black man kills a white man just for being white? What if a homosexual kills a heterosexual for not being gay? Far fetched and idiotic maybe, but have we thought of these scenarios or just the obvious ones? If a hate crime can be attached to the cases expressed in the various news stories why not my examples?

    All of these scenarios could happen but I doubt they will garner the same attention as the opposite scenario.

    I am still not convinced of your “legal theory.” I think its just loony Republican politics disguised as a legal theory.

    I’m not here to convince you of anything – you have to convince yourself. I’m not a Republican, I’m a Conservative. There is a difference. I guess by that same standard your comments are just loony Democrat politics disguised as a legal theory.

  26. Are we going to discuss hate crime as defined by the law, or by your made up and thoroughly fanciful definition?

    Hate crime has a specific definition. It is a crime where evidence exists that the victim(s) were selected because of race, religion, etc… What I said in my first reply was

    To meet the definition of hate there must be extenuating circumstances, such as belonging to a hate group, or other information that would lead a jury to believe it that the act was targeting a person for their color, creed, or sexual orientation.

    It is pretty easy to prove in court. Most perpetrators of these crimes have spent some time discussing, planning, and canvassing the crime scene.

    Given the above description, you cannot continue to discuss hate crime as a thought crime. You cannot say that while someone spent hours, days, or weeks planning a hate crime that then during the execution of the crime they had other thoughts.

    You wouldn’t say that about a bank robber or rapist; you cannot say that about hate crime.

    So I’ll ask again: are we discussing hate crime as defined by the law, or by your made up and thoroughly fanciful definition, because what you have defined doesn’t exist anywhere in the law your post discusses or the law anywhere in America.

    I’ll get to the standard I described on legal theory and describe why I said loony Republican politics. I had a reason. Your reply pretty much proved it.

    But for now, are we discussing the law itself, and if not why not?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: