Hate' Hoaxers Must Be Shamed and Punished

[MisterVeritis]

Show me where the BOR doesn't apply to any citizen regardless of state.

The bill of rights are limits on the Federal government. The bill of rights applies to the federal government.The Bill of Rights has no local police powers.

[MisterVeritis]

Treason, sedition and terrorism are considered political crimes.

Only treason is in the Constitution. Correct?

[Dr. Who]

If hate crimes are terrorism then the Congress needs to rewrite the terrorism laws and end hate crimes.

I have no problem with that. I like the K.I.S.S. principle.

[Dr. Who]

Only treason is in the Constitution. Correct?

Correct. However:


The Constitution does not itself create the offense; it only restricts the definition (the first paragraph), permits the United States Congress to create the offense, and restricts any punishment for treason to only the convicted (the second paragraph). The crime is prohibited by legislation passed by Congress. Therefore, the United States Code at 18 U.S.C. § 2381 states:

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

The requirement of testimony of two witnesses was inherited from the British Treason Act 1695.

However, Congress has passed laws creating related offenses that punish conduct that undermines the government or the national security, such as sedition in the 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts, or espionage and sedition in the Espionage Act of 1917, which do not require the testimony of two witnesses and have a much broader definition than Article Three treason. Some of these laws are still in effect. Some well-known spies, such as Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, have been convicted of espionage rather than treason

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason#United_States

[Dr. Who]

The bill of rights are limits on the Federal government. The bill of rights applies to the federal government.The Bill of Rights has no local police powers.

See the 14th Amendment - incorporation.

[MisterVeritis]

See the 14th Amendment - incorporation.

The 14th is not in the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is a substantial check on the government, not on the people. I agree the Federal government is a criminal enterprise. But we see few actions against the government.

[Dr. Who]

The 14th is not in the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is a substantial check on the government, not on the people. I agree the Federal government is a criminal enterprise. But we see few actions against the government.

The Incorporation Clause in the 14th Amendment makes portions of the BOR applicable to the States i.e. at least the first 8 Amendments.

See also 14th Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause: "'No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.

[jet57]

The Jussie Smollett "hate crime" saga appears to be reaching its pitiful denouement. Chicago Police are now requesting a follow-up interview with the Empire actor, following the confession of Smollett's alleged accomplices. A pair of Nigerian brothers, at least one of whom has known ties to the so-called "victim" and his television show, have reportedly told authorities that Smollett paid them to stage an attack. Officials confronted the pair with evidence of their purchase of rope and red baseball caps, prompting them to point the finger back at Smollett, claiming that he even requested a dry run-style "rehearsal" of the phony assault. Smollett's camp released an indignant statement insisting that he's still a victim, stating that he had no idea his attackers were known to him. Shortly thereafter, Smollett parted ways with his lawyer and obtained a new legal team.

When this allegation first burst into national headlines, my initial reaction was concerned skepticism. The idea of a young, black, gay man being targeted on account of his identity was, obviously, extremely disturbing. But there were pieces of the story that seemed far-fetched, right out of the gate.

The ostensible "MAGA country" taunting felt a little too on the nose. And how would these supposed roving, violent racists have recognized someone who was bundled up in the frigid cold, in the wee hours of the morning? As more details emerged (he was still wearing the rope when police arrived, quite some time later? And he strolled into his building still carrying his sandwich after the alleged assault?) the likelihood that Smollett was telling the unvarnished truth decreased significantly. And now, thanks to some strong police work, it is now crystal clear that his story was utter garbage all along. The new revelations make certain statements he made just last week on ABC's Good Morning America look positively sociopathic:

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guyben...llett-n2541649

Jessie faker should be tried and go to jail. We've not time for that BS.

[FindersKeepers]

Both motive and intent have always been considerations in how capital crimes are treated by the Courts.

Yes. The intent of someone who plots to kill his cheating wife is very different from the intent of someone who accidentally backs over his wife and kills her. Both wives are dead, but one man is much more a criminal than the other.

However, a man who shoots and kills his cheating wife because he hates her cheating ways, is not far removed from the man who randomly shoots an innocent man on the street -- just because he doesn't like the color of his skin. Both killed out of hate, but neither crime is worse than the other.

If a person's motivation in committing an assault or homicide is to promote fear in as many people as possible, that crime takes on a different aspect than a crime committed because someone has either a beef with an individual or a financial reason for causing injury or death. As noted previously, "hate crime" is really a subset of terrorism.

I think very few of the crimes currently labeled as hate crimes would qualify as terrorism. Shooting up a black church based on racism is one that would probably qualify.

Had Smollett been telling the truth, his tale would have qualified as a hate crime, but it wouldn't fit into the classification of being terrorism. Serial killings spread terror and damper daily activities more than virtually any other crime, and serial killers are often full of hate -- but we don't charge them with hate crimes.

I'm in favor of dropping all hate crime designations. If, as you say, a crime is intended to frighten many, perhaps it should be classified under terrorism.

[Dr. Who]

Yes. The intent of someone who plots to kill his cheating wife is very different from the intent of someone who accidentally backs over his wife and kills her. Both wives are dead, but one man is much more a criminal than the other.

However, a man who shoots and kills his cheating wife because he hates her cheating ways, is not far removed from the man who randomly shoots an innocent man on the street -- just because he doesn't like the color of his skin. Both killed out of hate, but neither crime is worse than the other.



I think very few of the crimes currently labeled as hate crimes would qualify as terrorism. Shooting up a black church based on racism is one that would probably qualify.

Had Smollett been telling the truth, his tale would have qualified as a hate crime, but it wouldn't fit into the classification of being terrorism. Serial killings spread terror and damper daily activities more than virtually any other crime, and serial killers are often full of hate -- but we don't charge them with hate crimes.

I'm in favor of dropping all hate crime designations. If, as you say, a crime is intended to frighten many, perhaps it should be classified under terrorism.

I agree that each crime is unique and should be charged accordingly based on the motive and intent. I agree that just because a bigot decides to kill someone spontaneously because their race or orientation has somehow provoked an insane impulse, doesn't make for a terrorist act. That person is probably mentally ill. However, when several people work as a group to commit these acts or an individual has a specific agenda to punish as many people as possible of a specific ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation, there is the foundation for terrorism charges.