• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Feds: 'Knockout' attack was a hate crime.

AGENT J said:
yes im fully aware now maybe you can answer the questions

What have his comments been? what as he said?
is there something off topic you read that you want to discuss?
was holder even mentioned in the OP?
Maybe it was in the video i didnt watch the video all i read in the OP was this

"Hate crimes tear at the fabric of entire communities," U.S. Acting Assistant Attorney General Jocelyn Samuels said Thursday in a Justice Department statement announcing the charge against Barrett. "As always, the Civil Rights Division will work with our federal and state law enforcement partners to ensure that hate crimes are identified and prosecuted, and that justice is done."

Maybe that answers your question? does it?
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter what he has said. His department jumped n this case like stink on ****. It is very much on topic.

Where is the state prosecution? They have first crack at this and the feds don't have jurisdiction.
 
Zyphlin said:
Absolutely agree. All these "knock out game" stories are sad and indication of cowardess to me, but the ones with them going after elderly are the worst. This sadly wasn't the first.

Though I disagree with the notion of "hate crime" legislation. The motivations for the attack shouldn't create some additional laywer of culpability and punishment. I'd be fine with allowing motivation to be taken into account when determining sentencing based on the law that is broken,
but I'm against placing additional penalties and violations on top of things because it was motivated by "hate".
Click to expand...
Click to expand...




I definitely agree that piling laws and penalties on top of laws and penalties doesn't get the job done.

If we would just fairly enforce the laws that are already on the books we would save a lot of paper, time, and money.

And our legislators could spend more time enacting laws that actually help the USA and its citizens.

Anytime anyone attacks anyone there is usually a lot of hate going on.

Very few people attack people that they love.
 
Last edited:
Mason66 said:
1.)It doesn't matter what he has said. His department jumped n this case like stink on ****.
2.) It is very much on topic.
3.)Where is the state prosecution?
4.)They have first crack at this and the feds don't have jurisdiction.
Click to expand...

1.) of course it does when your question was "What is Holder trying to achieve with this?" which has nothign to do with my post

so if you want that questioned answered besides "i dont know" youll have to provide some more info, it matters 100%

2.) no it wasnt on topic with anything i posted and you quoted me

3.) again is there not one? is there something in the article that says there isnt one?

4.) why? says who? if they deem it a federal crime thats that, how do you ever come to the conclusion they have no jurisdiction?

again is there something specific you are trying to ask and with back ground info?
 
Last edited:
shrubnose said:
I definitely agree that piling laws and penalties on top of laws and penalties doesn't get the job done.

If we would just fairly enforce the laws that are already on the books we would save a lot of paper, time, and money.

And our legislators could spend more time enacting laws that actually help the USA and its citizens.

Anytime anyone attacks anyone there is usually a lot of hate going on.

Very few people attack people that they love.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. The strange thing is that I have no issue with it being considered as part of the sentencing process.

Person A punched someone in the face at a bar. Seperately, person B ALSO punched someone in the face at a bar.

Upon the trial, there's reasonable evidence that Person A threw his punch after a guy grabbed his wife's ass and made a lewd comment towards her.

Upon trial, there's reasonable evidence that Person B threw his punch after a black man sat next to him when earlier in the night he stated "I can't stand all these N-words coming into this bar".

I have no issue with Person A being given the low end of the sentencing guidelines for battery based on the circumstances, nor do I have an issue with Person B being given the high end of the sentencing guidelines for his circumstances. There's a greater reason to believe that Person B would be a menace to society in a similar fashion in the future than person A would be.

I'd be absolutely fine if we handled "Hate" situations in that fashion. But not with a complete seperate statute that simply makes a crime into something even larger.
 
AGENT J said:
1.) of course it does when your question was "What is Holder trying to achieve with this?" which has nothign to do with my post

so if you want that questioned answered besides "i dont know" youll have to provide some more info, it matters 100%

2.) no it wasnt on topic with anything i posted and you quoted me

3.) again is there not one? is there something in the article that says there isnt one?

4.) why? says who? if they deem it a federal crime thats that, how do you ever come to the conclusion they have no jurisdiction?

again is there something specific you are trying to ask and with back ground info?
Click to expand...

What makes this a federal crime?

Was the attackee a federal employee?

Was this attack on federal property?

The feds just can't come in and take over a local case without jurisdiction.

So my question still stands, as the head of his department and the man who is responsible for the steps of every employee under his mandate, what is Holder trying to accomplish with this case?
 
Mason66 said:
1.)What makes this a federal crime? Was the attackee a federal employee? Was this attack on federal property? The feds just can't come in and take over a local case without jurisdiction.

2.)So my question still stands, as the head of his department and the man who is responsible for the steps of every employee under his mandate, what is Holder trying to accomplish with this case?
Click to expand...

1.) yes they can if its a federal crime and hate crimes can and do fall under that condition, seems you dont understand this fact

"Hate crime laws in the United States protect against hate crimes (also known as bias crimes) motivated by enmity or animus against a protected class. Although state laws vary, current statutes permit federal prosecution of hate crimes committed on the basis of a person's protected characteristics of race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)/FBI, as well as campus security authorities, are required to collect and publish hate crime statistics."

2.) you question still fails, you tell me seems that department is simply doing its job according to law, i ask you again all the question you keep dodging


A.)What have his comments been? what as he said?
B.) is there something off topic you read that you want to discuss?
C.) was holder even mentioned in the OP?

D.)Maybe it was in the video i didnt watch the video all i read in the OP was this

"Hate crimes tear at the fabric of entire communities," U.S. Acting Assistant Attorney General Jocelyn Samuels said Thursday in a Justice Department statement announcing the charge against Barrett. "As always, the Civil Rights Division will work with our federal and state law enforcement partners to ensure that hate crimes are identified and prosecuted, and that justice is done."

Maybe that answers your question? does it?
 
j-mac said:
The source matters today...especially when one posts everything from an agenda driven bias.
Click to expand...

I provided two sources. I can provide more, but i have a feeling you don't care about that facts really
 
Fruityfact said:
I provided two sources. I can provide more, but i have a feeling you don't care about that facts really
Click to expand...

Oh, I am all about the facts, call me Joe Friday. But, if you are relying on George Soros for facts, I question your definition.
 
j-mac said:
Oh, I am all about the facts, call me Joe Friday. But, if you are relying on George Soros for facts, I question your definition.
Click to expand...

Completely ignoring the reality that I posted another site depicting the same trend. I'm betting you'll keep arguing the source rather than the actual issue. I'm sure of it in fact.
 
Mason66 said:
It doesn't matter what he has said. His department jumped n this case like stink on ****. It is very much on topic.

Where is the state prosecution? They have first crack at this and the feds don't have jurisdiction.
Click to expand...

And there's a reason Holder jumped in. Funny how he ignores so much--for example, the Philly voter intimidation thing--but hopped right on this. :mrgreen:
 
Verax said:
The reason its a hate crime is because there is clear evidence that is what it was. He laid the whole thing out on video, indicating his exact intentions in doing all this.

I don't know the details of all of these knockout games, if there is clear evidence in the others that it was a hate crime then they should also be charged as such.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but the knockout game doesn't exist.
 
nota bene said:
And there's a reason Holder jumped in. Funny how he ignores so much--for example, the Philly voter intimidation thing--but hopped right on this. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

I would like an explanation as to why the feds are in on this case when it is clearly a local matter.
 
Mason66 said:
I would like an explanation as to why the feds are in on this case when it is clearly a local matter.
Click to expand...

Whites need to get used to the type of justice meted out to minorities for the last century or so.
 
washunut said:
Whites need to get used to the type of justice meted out to minorities for the last century or so.
Click to expand...

Quite possibly one of the stupidest statements I've ever seen on this forum upstairs.
 
as we hear same person say "stupidest statement" every day said poster posts
 
Mason66 said:
I would like an explanation as to why the feds are in on this case when it is clearly a local matter.
Click to expand...

wrong again but you keep repeating this fallacy and dodging the questions. very telling.

If you would like to say holder is incompetent or you dont like him thats fine by me, make your case, but stating fallacies wont help you.
 
When the three blacks on camera broke the guys jaw about a month a go that was a love crime????
 
AGENT J said:
wrong again but you keep repeating this fallacy and dodging the questions. very telling.

If you would like to say holder is incompetent or you dont like him thats fine by me, make your case, but stating fallacies wont help you.
Click to expand...

What is it you have a problem with?

Please explain to me why this is a federal case.

The feds can't just come in and take a case over when they have no jurisdiction.

Was the victim a federal employee or did this happen on federal property?

This was a local assault case period.

I haven't checked it out, but an earlier poster said the feds can come in of the local case fails.

Please show me where the local case was even filed, let alone failed.
 
I do believe in the first case we heard about a while back the suspects when interviewed stated they went after only white people.

Wouldn't that admission classify the crime as a hate crime?

For the record the suspects were black and the victim white.
 
I don't believe in hate crime legislation, my opinion is it is feel good legislation based upon assigning differing standards to the same thing. That said this was a cowardly and disgusting act against a defenseless person and rather than creating a hate crime standard the idiot who did this should get hit with everything on the books; Abuse of the elderly, aggravated battery, attempted manslaughter/murder, willful injury. The victim did not deserve what happened to him, on that we can all agree, I just think that crimes should be punished according to everything but motivation, an armed robber for instance gets punished according to the laws he broke, whether that was to feed his family or score quick cash it's irrelevant to the actionable crime.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom