BF2S Forums A "Hate Crime"

So you think when people vandalize synagogues with nazi symbols they should only get charged with vandalism and trespassing?

lowing wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

So you think when people vandalize synagogues with nazi symbols they should only get charged with vandalism and trespassing?

Yup.

What else would you want them charged with?

Committing a crime specifically because of who they are? aka...a hate crime

It's one thing to just attack someone. It's another thing to do it because they're black, white, latino, jewish, muslim, old, young, female, male, overweight, underweight, etc.

Obviously they can't tell if an attack is motivated by hate by a person's race/religion/etc unless they have proof. There luckily isn't thought police, so they need proof that there was. They're not going to charge 2 black guys who beat up a white guy with a hate crime just because they happened to be black and the victim happened to be white, they need proof.

lowing wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

lowing wrote:

Yup.

What else would you want them charged with?

Committing a crime specifically because of who they are? aka...a hate crime

It's one thing to just attack someone. It's another thing to do it because they're black, white, latino, jewish, muslim, old, young, female, male, overweight, underweight, etc.

Obviously they can't tell if an attack is motivated by hate by a person's race/religion/etc unless they have proof. There luckily isn't thought police, so they need proof that there was. They're not going to charge 2 black guys who beat up a white guy with a hate crime just because they happened to be black and the victim happened to be white, they need proof.

it is my opinion that if you investigate a murder, the race of the victim or the murderer should not be relevant. The fact that the victim is JUST as dead and the murderer is JUST as much a murderer should mean that nothing extra should be added or detracted from the case.

I suppose you are suggesting killing for race is a worse killing than killing for your Air Jordans, or your car stereo? to me it is all the same. Unless there are different degrees of death based on race that I am unaware of.
If you kill someone, to me that is an automatic hate crime.

Then I guess you believe we should believe the degrees of murder as well? That it doesn't matter if it was premeditated or heat of the moment? And we should get rid of manslaughter, vehicular homicide, negligent homicide etc? I mean, they're dead and someone killed them. That's what you're saying. So we should just lump all that into one big "he done killed a guy" charge?

Poseidon wrote:

lowing wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

Committing a crime specifically because of who they are? aka...a hate crime

It's one thing to just attack someone. It's another thing to do it because they're black, white, latino, jewish, muslim, old, young, female, male, overweight, underweight, etc.

Obviously they can't tell if an attack is motivated by hate by a person's race/religion/etc unless they have proof. There luckily isn't thought police, so they need proof that there was. They're not going to charge 2 black guys who beat up a white guy with a hate crime just because they happened to be black and the victim happened to be white, they need proof.

it is my opinion that if you investigate a murder, the race of the victim or the murderer should not be relevant. The fact that the victim is JUST as dead and the murderer is JUST as much a murderer should mean that nothing extra should be added or detracted from the case.

I suppose you are suggesting killing for race is a worse killing than killing for your Air Jordans, or your car stereo? to me it is all the same. Unless there are different degrees of death based on race that I am unaware of.
If you kill someone, to me that is an automatic hate crime.

Then I guess you believe we should believe the degrees of murder as well? That it doesn't matter if it was premeditated or heat of the moment? And we should get rid of manslaughter, vehicular homicide, negligent homicide etc? I mean, they're dead and someone killed them. That's what you're saying. So we should just lump all that into one big "he done killed a guy" charge?

Yup all except manslaughter given the assumption it was an accident and the circumstances.

Premeditated or heat of the moment does not matter ( or should not matter) you still purposely killed someone.

lowing wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

lowing wrote:

it is my opinion that if you investigate a murder, the race of the victim or the murderer should not be relevant. The fact that the victim is JUST as dead and the murderer is JUST as much a murderer should mean that nothing extra should be added or detracted from the case.

I suppose you are suggesting killing for race is a worse killing than killing for your Air Jordans, or your car stereo? to me it is all the same. Unless there are different degrees of death based on race that I am unaware of.
If you kill someone, to me that is an automatic hate crime.

Then I guess you believe we should believe the degrees of murder as well? That it doesn't matter if it was premeditated or heat of the moment? And we should get rid of manslaughter, vehicular homicide, negligent homicide etc? I mean, they're dead and someone killed them. That's what you're saying. So we should just lump all that into one big "he done killed a guy" charge?

Yup all except manslaughter given the assumption it was an accident and the circumstances.

Premeditated or heat of the moment does not matter ( or should not matter) you still purposely killed someone.

You really don't think someone should get charged more if they planned for months to kill someone rather than someone who lost their temper?

Someone needs to invent terraforming so that Balitmore can be broken off of Maryland and sent to the middle of the Atlantic ocean. Baltimore ranks up there with Compton, Oakland, Richmond, Detroit, Baghdad and Kabul as places where I'd never live.

Last edited by Hurricane2k9 (2009-08-20 17:41:10)

Reading the article this attack was racially motivated. Now I don't like the concept of charging people with hate hate crimes because I feel it could be easily exploited but if you are going to rail against hate crime law at least use a story where they are being mischarged with a hate crime and not obviously racist who attacked a person.

lowing wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

lowing wrote:

Yup all except manslaughter given the assumption it was an accident and the circumstances.

Premeditated or heat of the moment does not matter ( or should not matter) you still purposely killed someone.

You really don't think someone should get charged more if they planned for months to kill someone rather than someone who lost their temper?

Nope. He should die just like the guy that lost his temper. If you can not control your temper, you are a danger to society, if you planned a murder for moths you are a danger to society.

Luckily, the founding fathers didn't see it that way and nor does the very basis of our judicial system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder#Fir … ond_degree

If you are going to lump first and second degree murder together, you might as well lump manslaughter in too. I thought intentions didn't matter? As long as you killed a guy, it's the same?

Macbeth wrote:

Reading the article this attack was racially motivated. Now I don't like the concept of charging people with hate hate crimes because I feel it could be easily exploited but if you are going to rail against hate crime law at least use a story where they are being mischarged with a hate crime and not obviously racist who attacked a person.

This is true. I do think a lot of the time, hate crimes are bullshit (and yes I agree that it seems most of the time, it's only when a white commits the crime that it's considered a hate crime). But this is clear-cut racism.

Ty wrote:

I have to agree with Lowing on this one to a certain extent. There is a clause in New Zealand law that allowed for a muderer to claim that he/she was provoked. Essentially claiming this put the victim on trial which is awful, (thankfully after a recent case where a murdering shithead tried to pin the fault of stabbing his victim 206 times on the victim provoking him - can you believe that? - they are now talking abut removing this which is a good move by all accounts.) Someone loosing their temper and killing someone is no excuse. People need self control and if they lack it they are just as dangerous - even moreso - than the person planning a murder for months.

We don't have first and second degree murder here though. Murder is murder.

We've got what you described in the US 'Justice' system. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_manslaughter

I agree that lacking self control is just as if not more dangerous than a person committing premeditated murder.

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

Ty wrote:

I have to agree with Lowing on this one to a certain extent. There is a clause in New Zealand law that allowed for a muderer to claim that he/she was provoked. Essentially claiming this put the victim on trial which is awful, (thankfully after a recent case where a murdering shithead tried to pin the fault of stabbing his victim 206 times on the victim provoking him - can you believe that? - they are now talking abut removing this which is a good move by all accounts.) Someone loosing their temper and killing someone is no excuse. People need self control and if they lack it they are just as dangerous - even moreso - than the person planning a murder for months.

We don't have first and second degree murder here though. Murder is murder.

We've got what you described in the US 'Justice' system. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_manslaughter

I agree that lacking self control is just as if not more dangerous than a person committing premeditated murder.

There was a Law and Order: SVU case dealing with that specific charge actually. 6 year old kid dies (had rocks shoved down his throat..), they find out it was his friend who did it. He plays all innocent and they think nothing of him at first, but when the detectives interview people who knew the friend, they say he was sadistic and used to do stuff like burn cigarettes on his arm and smile. They eventually get the fingerprints from the friend off of a soda can when he was being questioned, but he acts all compassionate and sorry. They soon start to see what a sadistic kid he is in court and the father of the dead child sees him afterwards. The friend smiles at the dad and says "I'm so sorry about your son...". Father takes a court officer's gun and shoots the friend dead. He was eventually found not guilty because of the situation at hand and how his emotions made him think irrationally. The last line of the show ends with him telling the detectives: "You're right. I knew what I was doing. But there's a difference. He would've killed again. I won't."

Powerful shit, bro!

Narupug wrote:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/grigg/art-go … poster.jpg
Really lowing? A white supremacist killing planning for years and then killing a black guy isn't worse then a thug who tries to mug a guy but the guy puts up a fight so he kills him?  If you do not discourage racist behaviour it wil grow and fester because the punishment is no more then just doing something without a racist agenda, or is that what you want ?

Nope, I want ALL murderers put to death, equally. to say someone should be punished harder for killing a black guy over a white guy is nothing short of racist unto itself.