Feds Charge White Man With Hate Crime In First ‘Knockout Game’ Prosecution

Canna Sylvan said:

Not true. Two crackers can try to kill each other. If one happened to be gay and lost, it becomes a hate crime. Hate is determined by protected class.

Click to expand...

Degree is determined by motive.

abandonconflict said:

Degree is determined by motive.

Click to expand...

Degree should be determined by suffering inflicted.

If you want to off me for no good reason, a bullet in the head will suffice.

Don't beat me and tie me to a fence to die for days, or drag me behind a truck.

That's what some bigoted scum did to some poor queer and colored man respectively to start the push for hate crimes legislation.

You shouldn't fucking kill anyone that way.

BigNBushy said:

Degree should be determined by suffering inflicted.

Click to expand...

Suffering inflicted is one of the things a court observes when deciding the degree of a crime.

Aren't you studying law or something?

Degree of crime refers to the classification of a single crime into several grades of guilt. The degree of crime is determined according to the circumstances necessitating the commission of the crime. For example, type of injury and aggravating factors. One way to determine the degree of crime is to calculate the amount of damages that can be claimed.

Click to expand...

http://definitions.uslegal.com/d/degree-of-crime/

A "hate crime" law generally falls in to one of several categories:

1. laws defining specific bias-motivated acts as distinct crimes;
2. criminal penalty-enhancement laws;
3. laws creating a distinct civil cause of action for hate crimes; and
4. laws requiring administrative agencies to collect hate crime statistics.

Click to expand...

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime

Now, I'm going to stipulate that I am not defending the laws, but defining. Overall, I think that committing a crime against a person because of a bias is sociopathic and that there is no way to rehabilitate a sociopath. I can't change the laws and while you are free to cavil as you please, I'm just going to point out that in so doing, you belie a lack of grasp of the intent of the laws, as did Ginwilly. The intent specifically, is to add an extra charge. For example, if someone punches you out for being homosexual, they would be charged with assault and with "bias motivated crime" or "hate crime". However in some cases it only provides for enhanced punishment. In absolutely no cases do these laws ever intend leniency for criminals who commit crimes with out bias.

In the United States, the first such laws were designed to combat the KKK.

AC, I understand the intent, . I just disagree with the premise. I don't agree with that type of responsibility being put on juries. I would demand no less justice if a white man killed my mother for nefarious reasons than if a black man did it. Putting the responsibility on the jury to decide if that it should carry a longer sentence based on color is wrong.

Feel free to change this to mean whatever you want, it's your thing. You are almost as bad as the resident court jester yelling racist at every other post.

abandonconflict said:

Suffering inflicted is one of the things a court observes when deciding the degree of a crime.

Aren't you studying law or something?


http://definitions.uslegal.com/d/degree-of-crime/

A "hate crime" law generally falls in to one of several categories:


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime

Now, I'm going to stipulate that I am not defending the laws, but defining. Overall, I think that committing a crime against a person because of a bias is sociopathic and that there is no way to rehabilitate a sociopath. I can't change the laws and while you are free to cavil as you please, I'm just going to point out that in so doing, you belie a lack of grasp of the intent of the laws, as did Ginwilly. The intent specifically, is to add an extra charge. For example, if someone punches you out for being homosexual, they would be charged with assault and with "bias motivated crime" or "hate crime". However in some cases it only provides for enhanced punishment. In absolutely no cases do these laws ever intend leniency for criminals who commit crimes with out bias.

In the United States, the first such laws were designed to combat the KKK.

Click to expand...

I know it is. In my state, generally speaking, we dont give the death penalty to folks who quickly dispatch their victims.

A shot to the head gets you life, not death.

That is the way it should be I think.

I just don't understand the hate crime mentality. Why anyone would kill someone for just being someone different.

Then again, I don't know why that is treated much worse than killing someone because you wanted the money in their pockets.

Dead is dead. Just kill the person and be done with it. That sucks enough, no need to torture them.

ginwilly said:

I would demand no less justice if a white man killed my mother for nefarious reasons than if a black man did it.

Feel free to change this to mean whatever you want, it's your thing.

Click to expand...

You didn't answer my question. So clearly distortion is your thing

Do you think that there is a difference between someone murdering your mother over race and you murdering that person months later in a well planned retaliation?

ginwilly said:

In fairness I'll answer your question now. Under hate crime legislation, it would have to be determined since race played a part in the first murder, it would also have to be determined if it played a role in the 2nd. Did I kill them because they killed my mother or because they killed my mother AND were a different race. I'm not in favor of putting juries in that position.

And don't worry, you'll get called racist for being against hate crimes, but by people who call everyone a racist who disagrees with their agenda.

Click to expand...

abandonconflict said:

You didn't answer my question. So clearly distortion is your thing

Do you think that there is a difference between someone murdering your mother over race and you murdering that person months later in a well planned retaliation?

Click to expand...

You can't seriously be that dense and dishonest.

Heads up, that really was rhetorical.

I'll never understand why anyone would call someone out in the very same thread they made such of fool of themselves in. But you did, you are THAT guy.

abandonconflict said:

You didn't answer my question. So clearly distortion is your thing

Do you think that there is a difference between someone murdering your mother over race and you murdering that person months later in a well planned retaliation?

Click to expand...

he will never respond to the very clear distinction you are making because to acknowledge it would be to acknowledge the basis for hate crimes.

ginwilly thinks hate crimes are a method of persecuting whites, not punishing racism and bigotry. to acknowledge otherwise would damage his retarded worldview in which whites are some kind of persecuted faction that must bravely stand up to those whiny and demanding minority types.

the rest of society sees the distinction though, and recognizes the extra heinousness involved in killing or hurting someone solely due to their skin color or sexual preference.

ginwilly said:

I would demand no less justice if a white man killed my mother for nefarious reasons than if a black man did it.

Click to expand...

you clearly demonstrated that you don't get what a hate crime even is, so you should probably not bother opening your mouth to remove all doubt.

this is kind of like the affirmative action debate where you and your retarded buddies all tilt at "quota" windmills, even though quotas are illegal and just another way for you to demonstrate how clueless you are.

please just go away.

UncleBuck said:

he will never respond to the very clear distinction you are making because to acknowledge it would be to acknowledge the basis for hate crimes.

ginwilly thinks hate crimes are a method of persecuting whites, not punishing racism and bigotry. to acknowledge otherwise would damage his retarded worldview in which whites are some kind of persecuted faction that must bravely stand up to those whiny and demanding minority types.

the rest of society sees the distinction though, and recognizes the extra heinousness involved in killing or hurting someone solely due to their skin color or sexual preference.

Click to expand...

Matthew Sheppard was the name of the gay guy in Wyoming that was part of the initial push for hate crimes.

He wasn't killed just because he was gay. He fucking kissed and brokebacked the wrong guy at a bar.

I'm not defending the resulting action of going out and beating him and tying him to a fence to die.

But the instances of "hey, there is a black/queer/mexican, wouldn't it be funny if I killed him" are very rare.

UncleBuck said:

he will never respond to the very clear distinction you are making because to acknowledge it would be to acknowledge the basis for hate crimes.

ginwilly thinks hate crimes are a method of persecuting whites, not punishing racism and bigotry. to acknowledge otherwise would damage his retarded worldview in which whites are some kind of persecuted faction that must bravely stand up to those whiny and demanding minority types.

the rest of society sees the distinction though, and recognizes the extra heinousness involved in killing or hurting someone solely due to their skin color or sexual preference.

Click to expand...

At least he declared victory.

[QUOTE="BigNBushy, post: 10492545, member: 613618".....
But the instances of "hey, there is a black/queer/mexican, wouldn't it be funny if I killed him" are very rare.[/QUOTE]
True enough.
Much more common for a deranged gunmen to shoot a room full of random people.

abandonconflict said:

At least he declared victory.

Click to expand...

Because you were pretty obvious in your straw grasping.

And he was very clear in his answers and therefore earned the victory.

abandonconflict said:

At least he declared victory.

Click to expand...

I don't know where to begin with that.
Here's a stab: winning isn't everything. Just ask Charlie Sheen.

Ever notice how if you ask a righty, they'll say that the other righty had prevalent logic, but everyone else can clearly see they are full of shit?

So ginwilly, do you think that there is a difference between someone murdering your mother over race and you murdering that person months later in a well planned retaliation?

BigNBushy said:

Matthew Sheppard was the name of the gay guy in Wyoming that was part of the initial push for hate crimes.

He wasn't killed just because he was gay. He fucking kissed and brokebacked the wrong guy at a bar.

I'm not defending the resulting action of going out and beating him and tying him to a fence to die.

But the instances of "hey, there is a black/queer/mexican, wouldn't it be funny if I killed him" are very rare.

Click to expand...

try convincing someone else. i just watched a documentary about skinheads and their prevalence.

the SPLC doesn't exist for nothing, ya know.

The Congressional Black Caucus doesn`t exist for nothing either. They are legal racists with clout !i

Let`s all say it together now......For Black people only,....there, not so hard.

UncleBuck said:

try convincing someone else. i just watched a documentary about skinheads and their prevalence.

the SPLC doesn't exist for nothing, ya know.

Click to expand...

I've never seen one of these skinheads.

I'm sure they exist. But there are probably more billionaires.

Most of them are to chicken shit to just up and kill someone.

The SPLC exists so guys like you can feel important. They don't do much.