Page 20 of 31 FirstFirst ... 10181920212230 ... LastLast
Results 191 to 200 of 306

Thread: Utah man gets maximum sentence in hate crime case

  1. #191
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Last Seen
    09-26-15 @ 04:38 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    2,143

    Re: Utah man gets maximum sentence in hate crime case

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    1.) WTH? who even suggested that and HOW lol
    why do you just make stuff up?
    2.) reread number 3

    this is getting easier and easier to show facts prove you wrong

    so lets see what you learned
    your question was "Can you be charged with a hate crime without a bias towards the victims identity"
    the factual answer is YES as proven by law and the definition of the crime

    do you still disagree with this fact? yes or no
    1) "1.) there is no victim of the "hate crime" the hate crime was done to property" in case of burning down the church. If my house is burned down then am I not a victim of arson?

    2) how do you prove the assailant had bigotry towards Christianity to such an extent he's willing to burn down a church, without putting his opinions and thought on trial. In doing so, to prove that the arson building was done on the basis of bigotry does it not turn bigotry into the crime itself? Instead of suggesting he did this this is why he did it, are you now saying he did is, this is why he did it, he's a bigot and this is why he's a bigot?

  2. #192
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,761

    Re: Utah man gets maximum sentence in hate crime case

    Quote Originally Posted by Libertie76 View Post
    1) "1.) there is no victim of the "hate crime" the hate crime was done to property" in case of burning down the church.
    2.) If my house is burned down then am I not a victim of arson?
    3.) how do you prove the assailant had bigotry towards Christianity to such an extent he's willing to burn down a church
    4.) without putting his opinions and thought on trial.
    5.) In doing so, to prove that the arson building was done on the basis of bigotry does it not turn bigotry into the crime itself?
    6.) Instead of suggesting he did this this is why he did it, are you now saying he did is, this is why he did it, he's a bigotry, and this is why he's a bigot?
    1.) this is where your dishonesty or ignorance of the law comes in
    your question was WHO was the victim of the HATE CRIME, so you cant add to my original statement "the burning down of the church" because that is NOT the hate crime
    thank you for proving yourself wrong and showing i never said it was a victiumless crime
    2.) 100% correct which arso alone is NOT a hate crime, once again you prove yourself wrong
    3.) again reread 3 in post 188
    4.) his opinions and thoughts arent "on trail" he is being charged for his crime and motives
    5.) no bigotry itself is 100% legal until a law or crime broken.
    6.) i dont even know what this says. English is your second language isnt it?

    facts win again
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  3. #193
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Last Seen
    09-26-15 @ 04:38 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    2,143

    Re: Utah man gets maximum sentence in hate crime case

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    1.) this is where your dishonesty or ignorance of the law comes in
    your question was WHO was the victim of the HATE CRIME, so you cant add to my original statement "the burning down of the church" because that is NOT the hate crime
    thank you for proving yourself wrong and showing i never said it was a victiumless crime
    2.) 100% correct which arso alone is NOT a hate crime, once again you prove yourself wrong
    3.) again reread 3 in post 188
    4.) his opinions and thoughts arent "on trail" he is being charged for his crime and motives
    5.) no bigotry itself is 100% legal until a law or crime broken.
    6.) i dont even know what this says. English is your second language isnt it?

    facts win again
    1) So in your hypothetical situation the church owner is a victim of arson but not a hate crime. Then by your definition the hate crime is the bigotry being the motivation behind the arson, so there is no victim of the hate crime. So then it's safe to say the opinions of bigotry being the motivation are the crime itself, by that standard it is a thought crime

    4) his opinions become on trial because he's not only being charged for arson against the church owner, but he's being charged with being motivated by bigotry. That bigotry needs to be proven, or his opinions need to be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

    5) bigotry is legal until you use it as a motivation for a crime, but according to your statement that the act of arson isn't the only crime but that the act of using bigotry as a motivation is an additional victimless crime, shows that the act of using bigotry as motivation is a crime of itself. This suggests that opinion is a form of a crime itself, or thought crime

    6) "5.) boom! and there it is a failed personal insult.
    this is the typical response of a person who has no honest, intellectual and factual path left to support thier failed claims. Very telling." - agent j

  4. #194
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,761

    Re: Utah man gets maximum sentence in hate crime case

    Quote Originally Posted by Libertie76 View Post
    1) So in your hypothetical situation the church owner is a victim of arson but not a hate crime.
    2.) Then by your definition the hate crime is the bigotry being the motivation behind the arson, so there is no victim of the hate crime.
    3.) So then it's safe to say the opinions of bigotry being the motivation are the crime itself, by that standard it is a thought crime

    4) his opinions become on trial because he's not only being charged for arson against the church owner, but he's being charged with being motivated by bigotry.

    5.) That bigotry needs to be proven, or his opinions need to be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

    6) bigotry is legal until you use it as a motivation for a crime
    7.) but according to your statement that the act of arson isn't the only crime but that the act of using bigotry as a motivation is an additional victimless crime, shows that the act of using bigotry as motivation is a crime of itself. This suggests that opinion is a form of a crime itself, or thought crime

    8.) "5.) boom! and there it is a failed personal insult.
    this is the typical response of a person who has no honest, intellectual and factual path left to support thier failed claims. Very telling." - agent j
    1.) that is 100% correct by the definition of law and crime
    2.) wrong
    A.) its not my definition it is in fact the laws definition as provided by many links and facts
    B.) the hate crime is the motivation part
    3.) Wrong again the actions are the crime, no action no crime, the motivation is used to assess scale of crime.
    4.) Wrong again he is being charged with arson lol and then his motivation adds more.
    Just like if you assault a woman, you are charged with assault but then its found out you wanted to kill her thats was your motive. Now you are charged with assault and attempted murder
    5.) correct just like most crimes/felonies
    6.) 100% false. WHy is the definition of hate crime so hard to understand. Bigotry can be legal even in a crime it depends on the form of bigotry and if laws are broken based on that criteria.
    7.) 100% false, no action ZERO CRIME . . . if the arson doesnt happen and he just has bigoted THOUGHTS there is ZERO crime.
    Would it be a crime to THINK and have the THOUGHTS of hoping, wanting, wishing, saying he wants that church to burn down because he hates christianity? NOPE . . ZERO CRIME because thoughts are 100% allowed lol
    8.) lol but you are wrong again its an HONEST question, I already know you are not in america, you already proved you have very little understanding of rights, laws and hate crime and now you have shown to not understand some basic english so its a logical assumption and question that english might not be your first language. ZERO insult.
    You really cant get any of your strawman and made up assumptions to work can you?

    I agree it would be an insult IF you were here in america, lived here your whole live and i knew that. But you are not . . .

    once again your post fails and facts win
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  5. #195
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Last Seen
    09-26-15 @ 04:38 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    2,143

    Re: Utah man gets maximum sentence in hate crime case

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    1.) that is 100% correct by the definition of law and crime
    2.) wrong
    A.) its not my definition it is in fact the laws definition as provided by many links and facts
    B.) the hate crime is the motivation part
    3.) Wrong again the actions are the crime, no action no crime, the motivation is used to assess scale of crime.
    4.) Wrong again he is being charged with arson lol and then his motivation adds more.
    Just like if you assault a woman, you are charged with assault but then its found out you wanted to kill her thats was your motive. Now you are charged with assault and attempted murder
    5.) correct just like most crimes/felonies
    6.) 100% false. WHy is the definition of hate crime so hard to understand. Bigotry can be legal even in a crime it depends on the form of bigotry and if laws are broken based on that criteria.
    7.) 100% false, no action ZERO CRIME . . . if the arson doesnt happen and he just has bigoted THOUGHTS there is ZERO crime.
    Would it be a crime to THINK and have the THOUGHTS of hoping, wanting, wishing, saying he wants that church to burn down because he hates christianity? NOPE . . ZERO CRIME because thoughts are 100% allowed lol
    8.) lol but you are wrong again its an HONEST question, I already know you are not in america, you already proved you have very little understanding of rights, laws and hate crime and now you have shown to not understand some basic english so its a logical assumption and question that english might not be your first language. ZERO insult.
    You really cant get any of your strawman and made up assumptions to work can you?

    I agree it would be an insult IF you were here in america, lived here your whole live and i knew that. But you are not . . .

    once again your post fails and facts win
    1) meaning they are two separate crimes correct?

    2) wrong it's not the crime of bigotry being the motivation, then you state this "B.) the hate crime is the motivation part"

    3) you say wrong it's the action that's the crime not the bigotry then you go on to say this, "5.) correct just like most crimes/felonies" in response to my assumption that bigotry needs to be proven

    6) yes hate crime laws show motivation was a result of the bias towards the victims identity, like I suggested. A white racist attacking a white guy without the motivation of bias is not a hate crime. You need to have a bias towards the individual. Meaning committing a hate crime is having a bias towards an individual, opinion,hate crime, and acting on it, physical crime

    7) your thoughts and opinions are being charged, like I said it's not 1984 level thought crimes but it still is a thought crime

    8) ok good attempt to argue with something I didn't even give a right or wrong to, I just responded to your claim with a quote of yours that's all
    Last edited by Libertie76; 12-04-14 at 03:20 AM.

  6. #196
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,761

    Re: Utah man gets maximum sentence in hate crime case

    Quote Originally Posted by Libertie76 View Post
    1) meaning they are two separate crimes correct?

    2) wrong it's not the crime of bigotry being the motivation, then you state this "B.) the hate crime is the motivation part"

    3) you say wrong it's the action that's the crime not the bigotry then you go on to say this, "5.) correct just like most crimes/felonies" in response to my assumption that bigotry needs to be proven

    4) yes hate crime laws show motivation was a result of the bias towards the victims identity, like I suggested. A white racist attacking a white guy without the motivation of bias is not a hate crime. You need to have a bias towards the individual. Meaning committing a hate crime is having a bias towards an individual, opinion,hate crime, and acting on it, physical crime

    5) your thoughts and opinions are being charged, like I said it's not 1984 level thought crimes but it still is a thought crime

    8) ok good attempt to argue with something I didn't even give a right or wrong to, I just responded to your claim with a quote of yours that's all
    1.) no, related. separate charges COULD be filed but the crimes are related and go together
    2.) and this is why i assume english inst your first language. Keep rereading it and the defintion until it makes sense. I cant help you any more than that.
    Bigotry itself is not a crime
    3.) same thing, your english disconnect is confusing you.
    it 100% is the action, but the bigotry MOTIVE, WITH the action can increase the crime and must be proven.
    Just like motive in all other crimes that matter
    again english and law 101
    4.) and that "suggestion" was destroyed and proven wrong by facts law and definition while you had ZERO supporting your suggestion. You suggestion CAN be true in cases but doesnt have to be as facts proved.
    5.) 100% false, no action with the motivation ZERO crime. This fact will never change.
    THoughts are 100% legal
    6.) correct and your usage of it was wrong, it was another ASSUMPTION of yours that totally failed

    facts win again

    thoughts are 100% legal
    20 pages now and you haven't been able to support your false and proven wrong claims with ONE single fact? why is that?
    I mean i dont mind helping you learn american law, rights and crimes but the language barrier is a hurdle for you and when you have trouble understanding or denying facts and very simple definitions Im not sure i can fix your mistakes and failures. Seems youll need something in person. Do they have a law class in your school that might allow off topic discussion of american law? i know decades ago every other thursday in my law class we were allowed to talk about anything. That might help you if you have access to something like that.
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  7. #197
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Utah man gets maximum sentence in hate crime case

    And what's to debate?

  8. #198
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,761

    Re: Utah man gets maximum sentence in hate crime case

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    And what's to debate?
    nothing
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  9. #199
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Last Seen
    09-26-15 @ 04:38 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    2,143

    Re: Utah man gets maximum sentence in hate crime case

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
    1.) no, related. separate charges COULD be filed but the crimes are related and go together
    2.) and this is why i assume english inst your first language. Keep rereading it and the defintion until it makes sense. I cant help you any more than that.
    Bigotry itself is not a crime
    3.) same thing, your english disconnect is confusing you.
    it 100% is the action, but the bigotry MOTIVE, WITH the action can increase the crime and must be proven.
    Just like motive in all other crimes that matter
    again english and law 101
    4.) and that "suggestion" was destroyed and proven wrong by facts law and definition while you had ZERO supporting your suggestion. You suggestion CAN be true in cases but doesnt have to be as facts proved.
    5.) 100% false, no action with the motivation ZERO crime. This fact will never change.
    THoughts are 100% legal
    6.) correct and your usage of it was wrong, it was another ASSUMPTION of yours that totally failed

    facts win again

    thoughts are 100% legal
    20 pages now and you haven't been able to support your false and proven wrong claims with ONE single fact? why is that?
    I mean i dont mind helping you learn american law, rights and crimes but the language barrier is a hurdle for you and when you have trouble understanding or denying facts and very simple definitions Im not sure i can fix your mistakes and failures. Seems youll need something in person. Do they have a law class in your school that might allow off topic discussion of american law? i know decades ago every other thursday in my law class we were allowed to talk about anything. That might help you if you have access to something like that.
    1) crimes are plural advocating for separate crimes. The act of committing arson and the act of being motivated by the bias. Separate crimes

    2) I stated that bigotry being the motive was the crime. Not bigotry. Nice attempt " insulting someone shows your lack of argument"

    3) so it can increase the punishment but it's not a separate crime. In the case you suggested the burning of the church has two separate victims, according to you, two separate charges, according to you, but it's not two separate crimes, according to you. No wonder you didn't advance in law school

    4) it wasn't "destroyed" it was attacked by a level of ignorance that I have only seen by people when they can't admit they were wrong. You stooped so low in your ignorance towards my claim you actually suggested the building itself was a victim and not the property owner just to try to prove you were right

    5) what if you get caught planning to blow up a synagogue because you hate Jews? Is that motivation without action?

    6) it wasn't an assumption it was what we call in the political thinking world, cause and effect. You write a message that I perceive as a snide insult, I respond with a quote you make about how insulting someone shows your lack of argument. Just as I suggest hate crime laws cause more divison. Or charging someone with a crime based solely on motive begins thought crimes. Cause and effect.

  10. #200
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,761

    Re: Utah man gets maximum sentence in hate crime case

    Quote Originally Posted by Libertie76 View Post
    1) crimes are plural advocating for separate crimes. The act of committing arson and the act of being motivated by the bias. Separate crimes

    2) I stated that bigotry being the motive was the crime. Not bigotry. Nice attempt " insulting someone shows your lack of argument"

    3) so it can increase the punishment but it's not a separate crime.
    4.) In the case you suggested the burning of the church has two separate victims, according to you
    5.) two separate charges, according to you,
    6.) but it's not two separate crimes, according to you.
    7.) No wonder you didn't advance in law school

    8.) it wasn't "destroyed" it was attacked by a level of ignorance that I have only seen by people when they can't admit they were wrong.
    9.) You stooped so low in your ignorance towards my claim you actually suggested the building itself was a victim and not the property owner just to try to prove you were right
    10.) what if you get caught planning to blow up a synagogue because you hate Jews? Is that motivation without action?

    11) it wasn't an assumption it was what we call in the political thinking world, cause and effect.
    12.) You write a message that I perceive as a snide insult, I respond with a quote you make about how insulting someone shows your lack of argument.
    13.) Just as I suggest hate crime laws cause more divison.
    14.) Or charging someone with a crime based solely on motive begins thought crimes. Cause and effect.
    1.) false without the first there is no second. Fact
    2.) didnt insult you, nice try
    yes and that statement is false unless it breaks laws. Bigotry itself or even as motive is NOT a crime unless a crime is actually committed.

    You could be MOTIVATED to punch a guy cause he is black but you DONT actually act on that so there would be ZERO crime if there was no action/
    glad i could clear that mistake up for you again

    3.) correct
    4.) false according to LAW, facts and definition of crimes (not me)
    5.) false according to LAW, facts and definition of crimes (not me)
    6.) correct according to LAW, facts and definition of crimes (not me)
    7.) now THAT is a failed insult that makes me laugh cause it shows how desperate you are to be right when facts prove you wrong and it shows your anger over being wrong. Im only trying to hel you. Getting angry and trying to attack me and fail wont work it only further exposure your lack of education of american law rights and crimes on this topic.

    also ANOTHER example of your english disconnect . . who said i went to law school? seems you have a real habit of making things up and assumptions things that are completely wrong.

    8.) thread history, links to laws facts and definitions all prove this lie wrong

    9.) this is a bold face lie you just posted, in ever claimed any such thing. If you disagree simply quote me saying the building was the victim. You will fail because you just made it up but id love to see you try lol. In your next post quote me saying that lie, thanks

    10.) planning is an action, again, english

    11.) as already proven it was a wrong assumption.

    12.) yes a presumption, translation assumption based on your FEELINGS and nothing factual

    13.) a suggestion that you cant back up with any logic or facts that is wrong. In this case laws dont do it. Hurt feelings and ignorance does.

    14.) well good thing thats not happening so theres no cause or effect.
    your post fails and facts win again

    lets go over the facts
    your statement was wrong and the factual answer to your question is yes
    hate crime is not a thought crime and there are many other crimes that assess motive and reasoning

    talk about not being able to admit when a person is wrong. You are fighting against facts and getting destroyed yet keep trying. WHy? your statement failed and lost pages ago to facts (not me)

    lets see if you can admit it and lets see what you learned

    your question was "Can you be charged with a hate crime without a bias towards the victims identity"
    the factual answer is YES as proven by facts,law and the definition of the crime

    do you still disagree with this fact? yes or no
    Last edited by AGENT J; 12-04-14 at 04:56 AM.
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

Page 20 of 31 FirstFirst ... 10181920212230 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •