PDA

View Full Version : Disappointment re: hate crimes



Adelaide
11-17-2015, 03:07 PM
So I hadn't been paying attention to news in Canada or my region because I'm in the US and I constantly listen/watch various news outlets here that rarely cover Canada. I was talking to my brother about something and he mentioned a string of hate crimes in Canada and in my region against Muslims following the attacks in Paris.

I find this to be very disappointing and disturbing. A mosque was firebombed, several Muslims attacked for no reason, so forth.

I hate that the actions in Paris are inspiring these sorts of acts when the people being attacked in Canada did nothing to deserve it. The solution isn't to try and match hate for hate - committing hate crimes against Muslims is just going to make the situation more tense and punish people trying to live peacefully.

I know the concept of hate crimes is controversial, but the acts I'm referring to are clear examples of hate crimes or I wouldn't use the phrase.

Cigar
11-17-2015, 03:14 PM
Usually the people who are the victims know the difference.

Mister D
11-17-2015, 03:24 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ar-fHMwm_A

Cigar
11-17-2015, 03:25 PM
Dinosaurs all over the world are losing time ... :laugh:

Mister D
11-17-2015, 03:26 PM
Dinosaurs all over the world are losing time ... :laugh:

Yeah, sure looks that way. :laugh:

Cigar
11-17-2015, 03:35 PM
Yeah, sure looks that way. :laugh:

Wednesday November 9th, 2016 ... Don't oversleep :laugh:

Mister D
11-17-2015, 03:37 PM
Wednesday November 9th, 2016 ... Don't oversleep :laugh:

Not sure what that's supposed to mean but I am sure you don't either. :laugh:

Peter1469
11-17-2015, 03:45 PM
So I hadn't been paying attention to news in Canada or my region because I'm in the US and I constantly listen/watch various news outlets here that rarely cover Canada. I was talking to my brother about something and he mentioned a string of hate crimes in Canada and in my region against Muslims following the attacks in Paris.

I find this to be very disappointing and disturbing. A mosque was firebombed, several Muslims attacked for no reason, so forth.

I hate that the actions in Paris are inspiring these sorts of acts when the people being attacked in Canada did nothing to deserve it. The solution isn't to try and match hate for hate - committing hate crimes against Muslims is just going to make the situation more tense and punish people trying to live peacefully.

I know the concept of hate crimes is controversial, but the acts I'm referring to are clear examples of hate crimes or I wouldn't use the phrase.Those certainly sound like hate crimes.

pragmatic
11-17-2015, 03:45 PM
So I hadn't been paying attention to news in Canada or my region because I'm in the US and I constantly listen/watch various news outlets here that rarely cover Canada. I was talking to my brother about something and he mentioned a string of hate crimes in Canada and in my region against Muslims following the attacks in Paris.

I find this to be very disappointing and disturbing. A mosque was firebombed, several Muslims attacked for no reason, so forth.

I hate that the actions in Paris are inspiring these sorts of acts when the people being attacked in Canada did nothing to deserve it. The solution isn't to try and match hate for hate - committing hate crimes against Muslims is just going to make the situation more tense and punish people trying to live peacefully.

I know the concept of hate crimes is controversial, but the acts I'm referring to are clear examples of hate crimes or I wouldn't use the phrase.

The response/behavior of some may be disappointing. But it isn't surprising. The horrors/atrocities committed by the minority Islam population are still being done "in the name of Allah". Bad luck for the peace loving among the religion.


As for "hate crimes". Have never been supportive or a fan of the concept. If someone commits a criminal act, prosecute them. Fine. But trying to layer on some emotional hate factor for the sake of whatever....sort of ridiculous.

Cigar
11-17-2015, 03:46 PM
Not sure what that's supposed to mean but I am sure you don't either. :laugh:

Don't worry, you'll be in hiding. :laugh:

Adelaide
11-17-2015, 04:26 PM
The response/behavior of some may be disappointing. But it isn't surprising. The horrors/atrocities committed by the minority Islam population are still being done "in the name of Allah". Bad luck for the peace loving among the religion.


As for "hate crimes". Have never been supportive or a fan of the concept. If someone commits a criminal act, prosecute them. Fine. But trying to layer on some emotional hate factor for the sake of whatever....sort of ridiculous.

I get where you are coming from regarding hate crimes, but I think there is a difference between being assaulted and being assaulted because you're a Muslim, or gay, or Christian, or whatever. That impacts an entire community in a negative way. If I were walking down the street tomorrow and someone starting kicking the crap out of me it would effect my family and me and that's about it. If I were walking down the street tomorrow and someone called me a "kike" and then began beating the crap out of me it impacts the entire Jewish community. It causes people fear when there are people being targeted for something like religion or race or whatever. It extends the violence beyond just impacting the victim and those the victim is close to. And it kind of negates the constitutional rights (in Canada and the US) to freedom of religion and expression - it's someone going out of their way to make their violence reduce and attack another person's freedom.

Cigar
11-17-2015, 04:29 PM
I get where you are coming from regarding hate crimes, but I think there is a difference between being assaulted and being assaulted because you're a Muslim, or gay, or Christian, or whatever. That impacts an entire community in a negative way. If I were walking down the street tomorrow and someone starting kicking the crap out of me it would effect my family and me and that's about it. If I were walking down the street tomorrow and someone called me a "$#@!" and then began beating the crap out of me it impacts the entire Jewish community. It causes people fear when there are people being targeted for something like religion or race or whatever. It extends the violence beyond just impacting the victim and those the victim is close to. And it kind of negates the constitutional rights (in Canada and the US) to freedom of religion and expression - it's someone going out of their way to make their violence reduce and attack another person's freedom.

Like Burning Down Churches ... I know it's not as dramatic as one good old CVS Store :grin:

Peter1469
11-17-2015, 04:29 PM
Hate crimes, I believe, started at the federal level to give the feds jurisdiction over what is typically a state issue- the common crimes such as assault and murder. So if a locality is going light on certain crimes the Feds step in.

When states create hate crimes as well, that is redundant.

Common
11-17-2015, 05:22 PM
Like Burning Down Churches ... I know it's not as dramatic as one good old CVS Store :grin:

the last group of churchs burned were by a black guy in St Louis he did good he burned about 6.

What made the CVS store so traumatic was that it was the last place to work in ferguson and the last place to buy medicine the rest of the drug stores were robbed out of existence and run out of town. Job well done.

Safety
11-17-2015, 05:27 PM
I get where you are coming from regarding hate crimes, but I think there is a difference between being assaulted and being assaulted because you're a Muslim, or gay, or Christian, or whatever. That impacts an entire community in a negative way. If I were walking down the street tomorrow and someone starting kicking the crap out of me it would effect my family and me and that's about it. If I were walking down the street tomorrow and someone called me a "kike" and then began beating the crap out of me it impacts the entire Jewish community. It causes people fear when there are people being targeted for something like religion or race or whatever. It extends the violence beyond just impacting the victim and those the victim is close to. And it kind of negates the constitutional rights (in Canada and the US) to freedom of religion and expression - it's someone going out of their way to make their violence reduce and attack another person's freedom.

That has been pretty understood if one is a minority, but getting that perception shared among the majority has been an unfruitful endeavor.

Safety
11-17-2015, 05:30 PM
the last group of churchs burned were by a black guy in St Louis he did good he burned about 6.

What made the CVS store so traumatic was that it was the last place to work in ferguson and the last place to buy medicine the rest of the drug stores were robbed out of existence and run out of town. Job well done.


The most recent episode was comitted by a black man, however, in the south there have been many many incidences where it was done as a message to the black community.

Tahuyaman
11-17-2015, 05:31 PM
Hate crimes, I believe, started at the federal level to give the feds jurisdiction over what is typically a state issue- the common crimes such as assault and murder. So if a locality is going light on certain crimes the Feds step in.

When states create hate crimes as well, that is redundant.

Redundancy is what government does best.

Tahuyaman
11-17-2015, 05:33 PM
the last group of churchs burned were by a black guy in St Louis he did good he burned about 6....

.

He "did good" huh? That's sounds about right for you.

donttread
11-17-2015, 06:48 PM
So I hadn't been paying attention to news in Canada or my region because I'm in the US and I constantly listen/watch various news outlets here that rarely cover Canada. I was talking to my brother about something and he mentioned a string of hate crimes in Canada and in my region against Muslims following the attacks in Paris.

I find this to be very disappointing and disturbing. A mosque was firebombed, several Muslims attacked for no reason, so forth.

I hate that the actions in Paris are inspiring these sorts of acts when the people being attacked in Canada did nothing to deserve it. The solution isn't to try and match hate for hate - committing hate crimes against Muslims is just going to make the situation more tense and punish people trying to live peacefully.

I know the concept of hate crimes is controversial, but the acts I'm referring to are clear examples of hate crimes or I wouldn't use the phrase.

Assault is assualt and arson is arson and should be prosecuted to the fullest, but the motive is not a crime unto itself

Adelaide
11-18-2015, 09:35 AM
Assault is assualt and arson is arson and should be prosecuted to the fullest, but the motive is not a crime unto itself

Motive has always mattered in criminal law. Just look at the different levels of murder/manslaughter. Charging someone and including that it's a hate crime guarantees a harsher sentence than just charging someone with assault... and that's the way it should be. I laid out the reasons why in an earlier post. When the motive is "because you are Muslim" or "because you are gay" or anything along those lines, it's an attack on entire communities and not just the victim of the actual assault or arson.

Mac-7
11-18-2015, 09:47 AM
So I hadn't been paying attention to news in Canada or my region because I'm in the US and I constantly listen/watch various news outlets here that rarely cover Canada. I was talking to my brother about something and he mentioned a string of hate crimes in Canada and in my region against Muslims following the attacks in Paris.

I find this to be very disappointing and disturbing. A mosque was firebombed, several Muslims attacked for no reason, so forth.

I hate that the actions in Paris are inspiring these sorts of acts when the people being attacked in Canada did nothing to deserve it. The solution isn't to try and match hate for hate - committing hate crimes against Muslims is just going to make the situation more tense and punish people trying to live peacefully.

I know the concept of hate crimes is controversial, but the acts I'm referring to are clear examples of hate crimes or I wouldn't use the phrase.

The muslims will do the same to canadians if the islams ever reach majority

pragmatic
11-18-2015, 10:42 AM
Motive has always mattered in criminal law. Just look at the different levels of murder/manslaughter. Charging someone and including that it's a hate crime guarantees a harsher sentence than just charging someone with assault... and that's the way it should be. I laid out the reasons why in an earlier post. When the motive is "because you are Muslim" or "because you are gay" or anything along those lines, it's an attack on entire communities and not just the victim of the actual assault or arson.


Valid point.

Truth Detector
11-18-2015, 10:46 AM
So I hadn't been paying attention to news in Canada or my region because I'm in the US and I constantly listen/watch various news outlets here that rarely cover Canada. I was talking to my brother about something and he mentioned a string of hate crimes in Canada and in my region against Muslims following the attacks in Paris.

I find this to be very disappointing and disturbing. A mosque was firebombed, several Muslims attacked for no reason, so forth.

I hate that the actions in Paris are inspiring these sorts of acts when the people being attacked in Canada did nothing to deserve it. The solution isn't to try and match hate for hate - committing hate crimes against Muslims is just going to make the situation more tense and punish people trying to live peacefully.

I know the concept of hate crimes is controversial, but the acts I'm referring to are clear examples of hate crimes or I wouldn't use the phrase.

What a bunch of intolerant right wing Republicans they have up there!!!

http://i.imgur.com/aVZgT.gif

Truth Detector
11-18-2015, 10:48 AM
Wednesday November 9th, 2016 ... Don't oversleep :laugh:

LMAO; still think Democrats are winning. Funny stuff.

Truth Detector
11-18-2015, 10:50 AM
the last group of churchs burned were by a black guy in St Louis he did good he burned about 6.

What made the CVS store so traumatic was that it was the last place to work in ferguson and the last place to buy medicine the rest of the drug stores were robbed out of existence and run out of town. Job well done.

^True story

Common
11-18-2015, 10:50 AM
The most recent episode was comitted by a black man, however, in the south there have been many many incidences where it was done as a message to the black community.

yeah but cigar needs to be reminded that all black people arent stellar humans and all white people animals.

Safety
11-18-2015, 10:56 AM
yeah but cigar needs to be reminded that all black people arent stellar humans and all white people animals.

Yea, I don't think there is a shortage of people who remind him.

Adelaide
11-18-2015, 02:00 PM
The muslims will do the same to canadians if the islams ever reach majority

"If the islams"...?

I believe you mean "if the Muslims" - Muslim/Muslims describes a person/people, Islam is the religion. Or did you mean Arabs? Though not all Arabs are Muslims.

I'm not sure I'd trust your foresight on the issue given you don't seem to understand the basics.

Mac-7
11-18-2015, 03:11 PM
"If the islams"...?

I believe you mean "if the Muslims" - Muslim/Muslims describes a person/people, Islam is the religion. Or did you mean Arabs? Though not all Arabs are Muslims.

I'm not sure I'd trust your foresight on the issue given you don't seem to understand the basics.

"If the islams" is used as a sign of disrespect.

The way our grandparenrs said "Japs" or "nips" during WWII.

Common Sense
11-18-2015, 03:12 PM
Sometimes it's hard to tell when someone is displaying the obvious effects of fetal alcohol syndrome or just being disrespectful. Combination of both?

Safety
11-18-2015, 03:23 PM
Sometimes it's hard to tell when someone is displaying the obvious effects of fetal alcohol syndrome or just being disrespectful. Combination of both?

'murica.

Common Sense
11-18-2015, 03:23 PM
'murica.

Fuck yeah!!!

Safety
11-18-2015, 03:27 PM
Fuck yeah!!!

Fucking A!

donttread
11-18-2015, 03:43 PM
Motive has always mattered in criminal law. Just look at the different levels of murder/manslaughter. Charging someone and including that it's a hate crime guarantees a harsher sentence than just charging someone with assault... and that's the way it should be. I laid out the reasons why in an earlier post. When the motive is "because you are Muslim" or "because you are gay" or anything along those lines, it's an attack on entire communities and not just the victim of the actual assault or arson.

There are different types of murder charges based upon intent, not motive. If someone shoots me in the face there are plenty of available laws to put them away, whether they shot me over a poker game or because they don't like white country boys the charge should still be the same.
Hate crimes as a separate charge are tools of the thought police

Peter1469
11-18-2015, 03:54 PM
There are different types of murder charges based upon intent, not motive. If someone shoots me in the face there are plenty of available laws to put them away, whether they shot me over a poker game or because they don't like white country boys the charge should still be the same.
Hate crimes as a separate charge are tools of the thought police

Or a way for the federal government to exert control in localities where crimes against certain races are treated lightly.

nathanbforrest45
11-18-2015, 04:07 PM
Sometimes it's hard to tell when someone is displaying the obvious effects of fetal alcohol syndrome or just being disrespectful. Combination of both?


Only if you are from Canada.

You know how those "Frenchies" are.

donttread
11-18-2015, 04:08 PM
Or a way for the federal government to exert control in localities where crimes against certain races are treated lightly.

Or just away for the feds to exert more control, period.

Common Sense
11-18-2015, 04:08 PM
Only if you are from Canada.

You know how those "Frenchies" are.

Oh, I know...

Safety
11-18-2015, 04:13 PM
Or just away for the feds to exert more control, period.

You don't think all American citizens should enjoy liberty without fear from being targeted because of race or religion?

Mac-7
11-18-2015, 05:10 PM
You don't think all American citizens should enjoy liberty without fear from being targeted because of race or religion?

There would be less targeting of infides if we didnt have muslims in this country.

we have lost liberty because of the threat of terrorism by them

Safety
11-18-2015, 05:12 PM
There would be less targeting of infides if we didnt have muslims in this country.


Substitute muslims with.......blacks, Hispanics, gays, women, etc....

Mac-7
11-18-2015, 05:21 PM
Substitute muslims with.......blacks, Hispanics, gays, women, etc....

Women?

Conservative republican men do not want to get rid of the women.

Safety
11-18-2015, 05:22 PM
Women?

Conservative republican men do not want to get rid of the women.

At least they have one head working....

donttread
11-18-2015, 05:50 PM
You don't think all American citizens should enjoy liberty without fear from being targeted because of race or religion?

Of course I think that. But while you believe constantly making new laws is the answer I believe in enforcing the ones we have

Archer0915
11-18-2015, 05:52 PM
So I hadn't been paying attention to news in Canada or my region because I'm in the US and I constantly listen/watch various news outlets here that rarely cover Canada. I was talking to my brother about something and he mentioned a string of hate crimes in Canada and in my region against Muslims following the attacks in Paris.

I find this to be very disappointing and disturbing. A mosque was firebombed, several Muslims attacked for no reason, so forth.

I hate that the actions in Paris are inspiring these sorts of acts when the people being attacked in Canada did nothing to deserve it. The solution isn't to try and match hate for hate - committing hate crimes against Muslims is just going to make the situation more tense and punish people trying to live peacefully.

I know the concept of hate crimes is controversial, but the acts I'm referring to are clear examples of hate crimes or I wouldn't use the phrase.

Backlash. It is acceptable because it is rational and Kerry has justified it.

Safety
11-18-2015, 05:56 PM
Of course I think that. But while you believe constantly making new laws is the answer I believe in enforcing the ones we have

I don't think you know what I believe. :wave:

The Xl
11-18-2015, 05:59 PM
The people attacking random Muslims without proof as a response for what extremists did are no better than the extremists themselves, and are hopefully prosecuted to fullest extent of the law.

Archer0915
11-18-2015, 07:35 PM
The people attacking random Muslims without proof as a response for what extremists did are no better than the extremists themselves, and are hopefully prosecuted to fullest extent of the law.

Muslims coming in is not the same as those who have been here. If things start to go south every one of them, save very small children, may end up dead. It is called self defense and it is justified going by Kerry/Obama logic.

Common
11-18-2015, 07:37 PM
Women?

Conservative republican men do not want to get rid of the women.

SO blacks and hispanics are ok to get rid of ?

Captain Obvious
11-18-2015, 07:38 PM
SO blacks and hispanics are ok to get rid of ?

Just the men

Common
11-18-2015, 07:39 PM
Just the men

ahh got it

Dr. Who
11-18-2015, 07:46 PM
Assault is assualt and arson is arson and should be prosecuted to the fullest, but the motive is not a crime unto itself
When it's intended to send a message to others? Then it's really an act of terrorism - it's intended to terrorize other people who in this case happen to be Muslim. Otherwise what happened in Paris was a just few random people acting badly.

Mac-7
11-18-2015, 10:28 PM
SO blacks and hispanics are ok to get rid of ?

Not if they were born here.

We are discussing muslims from syria and other parts of islam in case centrists with short memories have forgotten.

Safety
11-18-2015, 11:15 PM
Not if they were born here.

We are discussing muslims from syria and other parts of islam in case centrists with short memories have forgotten.

Because that's the shiny object you are focused on this week. Once this passes, it'll be back to the Obama voters in the hood.

Common
11-19-2015, 03:20 AM
Because that's the shiny object you are focused on this week. Once this passes, it'll be back to the Obama voters in the hood.

mac is mac

donttread
11-19-2015, 07:06 AM
When it's intended to send a message to others? Then it's really an act of terrorism - it's intended to terrorize other people who in this case happen to be Muslim. Otherwise what happened in Paris was a just few random people acting badly.

France has it's own laws. But as for America yes I think we have sufficient laws on the books to put mass murders away for their actions alone.

Adelaide
11-20-2015, 10:42 AM
The people attacking random Muslims without proof as a response for what extremists did are no better than the extremists themselves, and are hopefully prosecuted to fullest extent of the law.

That would be the hope. There are also a bunch of Facebook groups attempting to gather money and stuff for those being affected, to help rebuild the mosque and such. It's good to see society recognizing when something is wrong and trying to help.

Adelaide
11-20-2015, 10:43 AM
France has it's own laws. But as for America yes I think we have sufficient laws on the books to put mass murders away for their actions alone.

Murder comes with a pretty heavy sentence.

Do you not see the advantage of having hate crimes for things like assault or arson or other crimes?

Truth Detector
11-20-2015, 10:46 AM
You don't think all American citizens should enjoy liberty without fear from being targeted because of race or religion?

Interesting; so did you have issues when florists and bakers were being religiously persecuted for not kowtowing to a gay marriage agenda?

Truth Detector
11-20-2015, 10:47 AM
Substitute muslims with.......blacks, Hispanics, gays, women, etc....

.....Christians. Or is bashing and imprisoning Christians based on their faith okay?

Truth Detector
11-20-2015, 10:50 AM
Murder comes with a pretty heavy sentence.

Do you not see the advantage of having hate crimes for things like assault or arson or other crimes?

Hate crimes; quite an amusing, but dumb narrative. What is less hateful about a young black murdering another young black over a street corner versus a white murdering a black man? Is it less hate if a black man murders a white man?

Adelaide
11-20-2015, 11:00 AM
Hate crimes; quite an amusing, but dumb narrative. What is less hateful about a young black murdering another young black over a street corner versus a white murdering a black man? Is it less hate if a black man murders a white man?

You do know that it's not automatically a hate crime if the people involved doh't all share the same race, religion, sexual orientation, disability, etc, right??? Do you need a legal definition to understand the laws better?

A white person murdering a black person would have to in some way express the intent was because he was black.

Common Sense
11-20-2015, 11:02 AM
You do know that it's not automatically a hate crime if the people involved doh't all share the same race, religion, sexual orientation, disability, etc, right??? Do you need a legal definition to understand the laws better?

A white person murdering a black person would have to in some way express the intent was because he was black.

You'd have more success explaining this to your new cat.

donttread
11-20-2015, 11:04 AM
Murder comes with a pretty heavy sentence.

Do you not see the advantage of having hate crimes for things like assault or arson or other crimes?

I believe the less laws the better, assault can carry a pretty heavy sentence too as can arson. The actions are illegal, not the thoughts behind those actions

Truth Detector
11-20-2015, 02:12 PM
You do know that it's not automatically a hate crime if the people involved doh't all share the same race, religion, sexual orientation, disability, etc, right??? Do you need a legal definition to understand the laws better?

Do share the legal definition; I am amused that you think they can exist without race, religion, sexual orientation, disability.


A white person murdering a black person would have to in some way express the intent was because he was black.

All crimes are hate related; there should be no categorizing of them. You commit murder; you go to jail for life without parole. It shouldn't matter what race, religion, sexual orientation or disability of the victims.

Cletus
11-20-2015, 03:12 PM
Motive has always mattered in criminal law. Just look at the different levels of murder/manslaughter.

Those actually have nothing to do with motive.


Charging someone and including that it's a hate crime guarantees a harsher sentence than just charging someone with assault... and that's the way it should be. I laid out the reasons why in an earlier post. When the motive is "because you are Muslim" or "because you are gay" or anything along those lines, it's an attack on entire communities and not just the victim of the actual assault or arson.

Yeah... except it's not. The only one victimized is the guy who gets his head caved in. No one else is injured. They may be offended or even frightened, but they are not injured. They suffer no material loss. The crime is not against them.

Is the guy who gets kicked in the face and mugged for money less important than the guy who gets kicked in the face because of the color of his skin or his religion or his sexual orientation? Doesn't the former deserve the same level of justice as the latter? Is he less important?

Dr. Who
11-20-2015, 07:30 PM
Those actually have nothing to do with motive.



Yeah... except it's not. The only one victimized is the guy who gets his head caved in. No one else is injured. They may be offended or even frightened, but they are not injured. They suffer no material loss. The crime is not against them.

Is the guy who gets kicked in the face and mugged for money less important than the guy who gets kicked in the face because of the color of his skin or his religion or his sexual orientation? Doesn't the former deserve the same level of justice as the latter? Is he less important?
Soooo....I guess terrorists are just criminals and if so, why do we even call them terrorists? They are just organized spree killers, not people trying to terrify the public for political/religious/hate reasons.

Mister D
11-20-2015, 08:43 PM
You'd have more success explaining this to your new cat.

You'd have just as much chance of explaining that to the dead black man. He's just as dead regardless of the motive. As if violent crime doesn't put fear into everyone. :rollseyes:

Cletus
11-20-2015, 08:53 PM
Soooo....I guess terrorists are just criminals and if so, why do we even call them terrorists? They are just organized spree killers, not people trying to terrify the public for political/religious/hate reasons.

Here's what you need to do... learn the difference between "hate crime" and "terrorism". They have very specific and different meanings.

After you do that, come back and rejoin the discussion and offer an informed opinion on the topic.

Dr. Who
11-20-2015, 09:30 PM
Here's what you need to do... learn the difference between "hate crime" and "terrorism". They have very specific and different meanings.

After you do that, come back and rejoin the discussion and offer an informed opinion on the topic.
Distinctions without much of a difference. Terrorism is also a hate crime. If one person attacks another on the basis of ethnicity, race, gender, religion or politics, it is a crime, but the motivation for the crime is hate and is often meant to not only affect the person attacked, but also send a message to other similiar individuals. Case in point, cross burnings of the KKK in the past. These acts were perpetrated against individuals, but were also intended to frighten others of the same community. Where groups of KKK members attacked many homes and churches on the same day/evening, with the intent of frightening and even killing, it was considered a hate crime, but substitute Muslims as the perpetrators in the same scenario and it would be called terrorism.

Peter1469
11-20-2015, 09:34 PM
Terrorism is a political crime.

Dr. Who
11-20-2015, 09:58 PM
Terrorism is a political crime.
So often are hate crimes. Racist or even religious based crimes are also political. Just look at the views on this forum. The antipathy toward Muslims is ostensibly political, but has very anti-religious aspects. Politics often encompasses social, racial, ethnic and even religious considerations. The rhetoric about Muslims on this forum alone is that all Muslims are Islamists and that Islam wants to take over the world. That becomes a political point of view. The KKK has been regarded both as a hate group and a political group. Were the "troubles" in Ireland religious or political? Were the crusades religious or political? Where does one end and the other begin?

Cletus
11-20-2015, 10:22 PM
Distinctions without much of a difference.

Actually, the differences are significant.


Terrorism is also a hate crime. If one person attacks another on the basis of ethnicity, race, gender, religion or politics, it is a crime, but the motivation for the crime is hate and is often meant to not only affect the person attacked, but also send a message to other similiar individuals. Case in point, cross burnings of the KKK in the past. These acts were perpetrated against individuals, but were also intended to frighten others of the same community. Where groups of KKK members attacked many homes and churches on the same day/evening, with the intent of frightening and even killing, it was considered a hate crime, but substitute Muslims as the perpetrators in the same scenario and it would be called terrorism.

If the actions you describe were perpetrated by the KKK today, they would very likely bring charges of terrorism. As Peter said, there needs to be a political element in the crime in order for it to be classed as terrorism.

Terorrism is divided by statute into two categories... International and Domestic. The US Code defines them as follows:

8 U.S. Code § 2331 - Definitions

Current through Pub. L. 114-38 (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-114publ38/html/PLAW-114publ38.htm). (See Public Laws for the current Congress (http://thomas.loc.gov/home/LegislativeData.php?n=PublicLaws).)
US Code (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2331?qt-us_code_temp_noupdates=0#qt-us_code_temp_noupdates)

Notes (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2331?qt-us_code_temp_noupdates=1#qt-us_code_temp_noupdates)

prev (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2327) | next (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2332)
As used in this chapter— (1) the term “international terrorism” means activities that— (A)involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;

(B) appear to be intended—(i)to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii)to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii)to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C)occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum;

(2)the term “national of the United States” has the meaning given such term in section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act;
(3)the term “person” means any individual or entity capable of holding a legal or beneficial interest in property;
(4) the term “act of war” means any act occurring in the course of— (A)declared war;

(B)armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared, between two or more nations; or

(C)armed conflict between military forces of any origin; and

(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that— (A)involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;(B) appear to be intended— (i)to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii)to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii)to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

(C)occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

(Added Pub. L. 102–572, title X, § 1003(a)(3) (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/L?d102:./list/bd/d102pl.lst:572(Public_Laws)), Oct. 29, 1992, 106 Stat. 4521 (http://uscode.house.gov/statviewer.htm?volume=106&page=4521); amended Pub. L. 107–56, title VIII, § 802(a) (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ56/html/PLAW-107publ56.htm), Oct. 26, 2001, 115 Stat. 376 (http://uscode.house.gov/statviewer.htm?volume=115&page=376).)

Hate Crime has been defined by the United States Congress as a “criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.”

There is no actual Federal "Hate Crime". They are investigated by the Feds as "Civil Rights Violations".

Hate Crimes and Terrorism are not one and the same.

Dr. Who
11-20-2015, 10:33 PM
Actually, the differences are significant.



If the actions you describe were perpetrated by the KKK today, they would very likely bring charges of terrorism. As Peter said, there needs to be a political element in the crime in order for it to be classed as terrorism.

Terorrism is divided by statute into two categories... International and Domestic. The US Code defines them as follows:

8 U.S. Code § 2331 - Definitions

Current through Pub. L. 114-38 (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-114publ38/html/PLAW-114publ38.htm). (See Public Laws for the current Congress (http://thomas.loc.gov/home/LegislativeData.php?n=PublicLaws).)
US Code (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2331?qt-us_code_temp_noupdates=0#qt-us_code_temp_noupdates)

Notes (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2331?qt-us_code_temp_noupdates=1#qt-us_code_temp_noupdates)
prev (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2327) | next (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2332)
As used in this chapter— (1) the term “international terrorism” means activities that— (A)involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State;

(B) appear to be intended—(i)to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii)to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii)to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C)occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum;

(2)the term “national of the United States” has the meaning given such term in section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act;
(3)the term “person” means any individual or entity capable of holding a legal or beneficial interest in property;
(4) the term “act of war” means any act occurring in the course of— (A)declared war;

(B)armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared, between two or more nations; or

(C)armed conflict between military forces of any origin; and

(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that— (A)involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;(B) appear to be intended— (i)to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii)to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii)to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and

(C)occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

(Added Pub. L. 102–572, title X, § 1003(a)(3) (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/L?d102:./list/bd/d102pl.lst:572(Public_Laws)), Oct. 29, 1992, 106 Stat. 4521 (http://uscode.house.gov/statviewer.htm?volume=106&page=4521); amended Pub. L. 107–56, title VIII, § 802(a) (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ56/html/PLAW-107publ56.htm), Oct. 26, 2001, 115 Stat. 376 (http://uscode.house.gov/statviewer.htm?volume=115&page=376).)

Hate Crime has been defined by the United States Congress as a “criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.”

There is no actual Federal "Hate Crime". They are investigated by the Feds as "Civil Rights Violations".

Hate Crimes and Terrorism are not one and the same.
If a bunch of good old boys got together and decided fire bomb a Mosque while it was full of people, would it be a hate crime or a terrorist attack?

Mister D
11-20-2015, 10:34 PM
If a bunch of good old boys got together and decided fire bomb a Mosque while it was full of people, would it be a hate crime or a terrorist attack?

Hate crime.

Peter1469
11-20-2015, 10:34 PM
If a bunch of good old boys got together and decided fire bomb a Mosque while it was full of people, would it be a hate crime or a terrorist attack?

Under most state laws it would be arson and attempted murder plus murder for the dead.

Mister D
11-20-2015, 10:35 PM
No, actually it would be mass murder. I mean WTF? You scoundrels are being charged with a hate crime! We're also going to bring multiple murder charges against you but those can wait...

Dr. Who
11-20-2015, 10:43 PM
Hate crime.
What if the good old boys were trying to get the Muslim community to leave the state, if not the country?

Dr. Who
11-20-2015, 10:54 PM
Under most state laws it would be arson and attempted murder plus murder for the dead.
I imagine that beyond that if there were a conspiracy to kill Muslims and drive them away, it would at the very least be considered a hate crime, but could also be an act of terrorism, if the goal was to terrify the community. In legal terms it would probably be a hate crime because the subjects don't control the government. In real terms it would still be an act of terrorism and would still be political. However, if the group had some catchy name and stated that they would attack all Muslims everywhere until the government expelled them, it might meet the legal definition of terrorism. The importance of the label has less to do with the sentences that the individuals would serve and more to do with identifying and rooting out extremist organizations.

Mister D
11-20-2015, 11:01 PM
What if the good old boys were trying to get the Muslim community to leave the state, if not the country?

What they're trying to get the Muslims to do is irrelevant. It's what they're trying to get the state to do that is of interest here. In your scenario, that would be nothing so it's not terrorism. Terrorism is a political matter. Peter is correct.

Cletus
11-20-2015, 11:32 PM
If a bunch of good old boys got together and decided fire bomb a Mosque while it was full of people, would it be a hate crime or a terrorist attack?

It would be arson unless certain criteria are met.

Cletus
11-20-2015, 11:33 PM
Under most state laws it would be arson and attempted murder plus murder for the dead.

Yes.

Dr. Who
11-20-2015, 11:36 PM
It would be arson unless certain criteria are met.
I think that the law splits hairs.

Don
11-21-2015, 12:13 AM
Motive has always mattered in criminal law. Just look at the different levels of murder/manslaughter. Charging someone and including that it's a hate crime guarantees a harsher sentence than just charging someone with assault... and that's the way it should be. I laid out the reasons why in an earlier post. When the motive is "because you are Muslim" or "because you are gay" or anything along those lines, it's an attack on entire communities and not just the victim of the actual assault or arson.

I would rather dispense with the term "hate crime" and just go with extenuating circumstances as a sentencing enhancer.

Peter1469
11-21-2015, 03:55 AM
I would rather dispense with the term "hate crime" and just go with extenuating circumstances as a sentencing enhancer.


It was created to give the federal government jurisdiction in certain cases.

HoneyBadger
11-21-2015, 04:33 AM
Motive has always mattered in criminal law. Just look at the different levels of murder/manslaughter. Charging someone and including that it's a hate crime guarantees a harsher sentence than just charging someone with assault... and that's the way it should be. I laid out the reasons why in an earlier post. When the motive is "because you are Muslim" or "because you are gay" or anything along those lines, it's an attack on entire communities and not just the victim of the actual assault or arson.

Motive is used in charging people with specific crimes. Did the perpetrator develop a plan to murder citizen X or was their death the result of the crime being committed?

Dead is dead. You prosecute someone because of their actions, not their opinions.

Peter1469
11-21-2015, 04:49 AM
Motive is used in charging people with specific crimes. Did the perpetrator develop a plan to murder citizen X or was their death the result of the crime being committed?

Dead is dead. You prosecute someone because of their actions, not their opinions.

Hate crimes were created to give the federal government jurisdiction in certain cases.

Safety
11-21-2015, 07:19 AM
Hate crimes were created to give the federal government jurisdiction in certain cases.

Mainly in the South where the local enforcement was either turning a blind eye or were willing participants in the racial tensions. It also had the effect of trying to dissuade future acts of violence by increasing the punishment for it being a hate crime.

Safety
11-21-2015, 07:21 AM
Motive is used in charging people with specific crimes. Did the perpetrator develop a plan to murder citizen X or was their death the result of the crime being committed?

Dead is dead. You prosecute someone because of their actions, not their opinions.

Yes, dead is dead, however the motive behind someone committing the crime was what the added law was addressing.

Mister D
11-21-2015, 09:45 AM
It was created to give the federal government jurisdiction in certain cases.

But now some are trying to tell us there is a reason to retain them. That is, they had an inherent justification which is of course nonsense.

donttread
11-21-2015, 10:11 AM
Mainly in the South where the local enforcement was either turning a blind eye or were willing participants in the racial tensions. It also had the effect of trying to dissuade future acts of violence by increasing the punishment for it being a hate crime.

Hate is a thought, therefore we have outlawed certain thoughts . How Orwellian of us

Peter1469
11-21-2015, 04:27 PM
Mainly in the South where the local enforcement was either turning a blind eye or were willing participants in the racial tensions. It also had the effect of trying to dissuade future acts of violence by increasing the punishment for it being a hate crime.

Thank you. Most are ignoring this fact.

Peter1469
11-21-2015, 04:28 PM
But now some are trying to tell us there is a reason to retain them. That is, they had an inherent justification which is of course nonsense.
They are rarely used at the federal level.

The problem is the states adopting similar laws and are abusing them.

Cletus
11-21-2015, 04:42 PM
Yes, dead is dead, however the motive behind someone committing the crime was what the added law was addressing.

So now we punish people for their thoughts and emotions. I guess the next step in the process will be to punish people for what they say or write. Why wait until they actually commit a crime? Head 'em off at the pass.

Are you good with that?

Safety
11-21-2015, 05:13 PM
So now we punish people for their thoughts and emotions. I guess the next step in the process will be to punish people for what they say or write. Why wait until they actually commit a crime? Head 'em off at the pass.

Are you good with that?

Well, we already punish people for their emotional state or state of mind, and it helps determine the amount of punitive damage that is awarded by a jury.

Cletus
11-21-2015, 05:14 PM
Well, we already punish people for their emotional state or state of mind, and it helps determine the amount of punitive damage that is awarded by a jury.

You are conflating a civil suit with a criminal prosecution.

Bad idea.

Safety
11-21-2015, 05:28 PM
You are conflating a civil suit with a criminal prosecution.

Bad idea.

Yet, most civil suits are brought after the criminal trial. When talking about the general welfare of society, shouldn't there be modules set up that prevents the infringement of civil liberties of all american citizens? On the basis of crime, I feel the resentment of the use of "hate" crimes is more because it seems to be weighted to one side. But, actually when looking at the statuate, it spells out the critera that would enable the add-on, ANY action that causes harm or injury based upon the sole factor of either skin color, race, gender, handicap, or religious status.

Just because the majority of the cases would be in favor of a minority or a gay person, does not mean it is not fairly applied to every citizen.

Cletus
11-21-2015, 06:02 PM
Yet, most civil suits are brought after the criminal trial. When talking about the general welfare of society, shouldn't there be modules set up that prevents the infringement of civil liberties of all american citizens? On the basis of crime, I feel the resentment of the use of "hate" crimes is more because it seems to be weighted to one side. But, actually when looking at the statuate, it spells out the critera that would enable the add-on, ANY action that causes harm or injury based upon the sole factor of either skin color, race, gender, handicap, or religious status.

Just because the majority of the cases would be in favor of a minority or a gay person, does not mean it is not fairly applied to every citizen.

It is not how it is applied that bothers me. It existence bothers me.

We are punishing thought. We are also, by giving assuming the injury to a person who is the victim of a "hate crime" is somehow more egregious than the injury to a person who is the victim of an identical crime minus the "hate" enhancement. A beating is a beating. A broken bone is a broken bone. A murder is a murder. What the bad guy was thinking at the time or what his motive was in inflicting injury does not change the extent of the injury to the victim.

Put yourself in the place of a victim. A guy comes and smacks you in the head with a baseball bat, causes severe trauma to your head, maybe blinds you or causes diminished mental capacity.

The guy is caught and it turns out that he did that to you because you were well dressed, got out of a nice car and he thought you had a fat wallet. His motive was robbery.

Another guy does the same thing to you, only this guy is obviously a neo-Nazi, racist skinhead who attacked you because of the color of your skin.

Are the injuries you suffered at the hands of the first guy any less than the injuries you suffered at the hands of the second? The two guys did exactly the same thing. The only difference was WHY they did it. The end result is the same. You are severely injured, maybe permanently disabled.

Now, assume we are talking about two different victims. Should one of the victims receive less justice from the State because his was just an old fashioned robbery and battery with a deadly weapon? Should the other guy receive greater justice from the State, even though his injuries were identical to those of the first victim, but his assailant attacked because of his skin color or sexual orientation?

That is my problem with "hate crimes".

Mister D
11-21-2015, 06:13 PM
It is not how it is applied that bothers me. It existence bothers me.

We are punishing thought. We are also, by giving assuming the injury to a person who is the victim of a "hate crime" is somehow more egregious than the injury to a person who is the victim of an identical crime minus the "hate" enhancement. A beating is a beating. A broken bone is a broken bone. A murder is a murder. What the bad guy was thinking at the time or what his motive was in inflicting injury does not change the extent of the injury to the victim.

Put yourself in the place of a victim. A guy comes and smacks you in the head with a baseball bat, causes severe trauma to your head, maybe blinds you or causes diminished mental capacity.

The guy is caught and it turns out that he did that to you because you were well dressed, got out of a nice car and he thought you had a fat wallet. His motive was robbery.

Another guy does the same thing to you, only this guy is obviously a neo-Nazi, racist skinhead who attacked you because of the color of your skin.

Are the injuries you suffered at the hands of the first guy any less than the injuries you suffered at the hands of the second? The two guys did exactly the same thing. The only difference was WHY they did it. The end result is the same. You are severely injured, maybe permanently disabled.

Now, assume we are talking about two different victims. Should one of the victims receive less justice from the State because his was just an old fashioned robbery and battery with a deadly weapon? Should the other guy receive greater justice from the State, even though his injuries were identical to those of the first victim, but his assailant attacked because of his skin color or sexual orientation?

That is my problem with "hate crimes".

The argument appears to be that it makes other members of the targeted group afraid as if violent crime doesn't make everyone afraid.

Common
11-21-2015, 07:31 PM
The argument appears to be that it makes other members of the targeted group afraid as if violent crime doesn't make everyone afraid.

Its all created bullshit to deflect that all the proponents of illegal immigration and refugees are just stupid enough to follow obama off a cliff. If Obama said he was against it, they would be against it. Its mindlessness. I prefer to think for myself and use available facts and information