Page 21 of 31 FirstFirst ... 111920212223 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 210 of 306

Thread: Utah man gets maximum sentence in hate crime case

  1. #201
    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.) 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
    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
    1) 2nd means second crime. You're wrong

    2) the motivation of the crime is a crime in hate crime. "Bigotry itself or even as motive is NOT a crime, unless a crime is actually committed." Two separate crimes

    4) false it's your opinion of the law I'm basing my argument on, not fact

    5) false it's your opinion if the law I'm basing my argument on, not fact

    6) doesn't make sense, each charge against someone is a separate crime or else it's something called double jeopardy. You already admit this previously in the same post. Youre wrong

    7) your snide insults and your counter arguments show your immaturity and how you never went to law school. Already known already proven

    8) thread history doesn't prove anything of the nature, you're wrong it's just your interpretation

    9) 1.) there is no victim of the "hate crime" the hate crime was done to property, " I never said it was a victiumless crime", implying the property is the victim since it's not a victimless crime

    10) is a single person planning is an idea not action. You're wrong

    11) wrong. Prior posts suggest differently not proven just your interpretation

    12) wrong that's not the definition of perceive your translation is just your opinion not fact

    13) refusing to say something is logical simply because you are a master of being able to twist words to support a non existent counter argument isn't the definition illogical, you're wrong. Laws don't divide people, opinion does besides for Jim Crow laws, I'm right and your wrong

    14) your wrong it's based on fact. Bias with motivation is hate crime law, that's a thought crime, that's a fact. Facts win again

    Let's go over your counter argument.

    Your counter argument has absolutely no rational basis considering the question you are asking at this point could be over 20
    There are many other crimes that asses level of motive to give punishment, but a hate crime is the only crime based solely on motive

    Yes I do disagree with this, because it's not a fact. Your little hypothetical case didn't prove this to be untrue in the slightest, the definitions you attempted to use against me actually worked against you and you twisted words to try to proof your point

    Wow look at that I just destroyed you

  2. #202
    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) 2nd means second crime. You're wrong

    2) the motivation of the crime is a crime in hate crime. "Bigotry itself or even as motive is NOT a crime, unless a crime is actually committed." Two separate crimes

    4) false it's your opinion of the law I'm basing my argument on, not fact

    5) false it's your opinion if the law I'm basing my argument on, not fact

    6) doesn't make sense, each charge against someone is a separate crime or else it's something called double jeopardy. You already admit this previously in the same post. Youre wrong

    7) your snide insults and your counter arguments show your immaturity and how you never went to law school. Already known already proven

    8) thread history doesn't prove anything of the nature, you're wrong it's just your interpretation

    9) 1.) there is no victim of the "hate crime" the hate crime was done to property, " I never said it was a victiumless crime", implying the property is the victim since it's not a victimless crime

    10) is a single person planning is an idea not action. You're wrong

    11) wrong. Prior posts suggest differently not proven just your interpretation

    12) wrong that's not the definition of perceive your translation is just your opinion not fact

    13) refusing to say something is logical simply because you are a master of being able to twist words to support a non existent counter argument isn't the definition illogical, you're wrong. Laws don't divide people, opinion does besides for Jim Crow laws, I'm right and your wrong

    14) your wrong it's based on fact. Bias with motivation is hate crime law, that's a thought crime, that's a fact. Facts win again

    Let's go over your counter argument.

    Your counter argument has absolutely no rational basis considering the question you are asking at this point could be over 20
    There are many other crimes that asses level of motive to give punishment, but a hate crime is the only crime based solely on motive

    Yes I do disagree with this, because it's not a fact. Your little hypothetical case didn't prove this to be untrue in the slightest, the definitions you attempted to use against me actually worked against you and you twisted words to try to proof your point

    Wow look at that I just destroyed you
    well since you are not interested in learning, honest discussion, have trouble with english, cant admit you lost to facts or even facts themselves Im not going to try and help and fix your mistakes anymore. Ill just leave it here to further expose youer failed and factually proven wrong post. you post fails and fact win again.

    lets go over the facts

    your statement was wrong and the factual answer to your question is yes. Fact
    hate crime is not a thought crime and there are many other crimes that assess motive there has to be ACTION. fact

    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

    facts, laws and definitions all prove you wrong, please tell us what you have that support your failed and proven wrong claims

    in you reply post FACTS that make your claims right, your OPINIONS are meanignless
    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. #203
    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
    10) a single person planning is an idea not action. You're wrong
    I think this is my favorite example of the inability to understand facts, english and or dishonesty in your posts

    did you really just type that and you thought it would be taken seriously?


    lets look at the dictionary

    Planning - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
    planning
    : the act or process of making or carrying out plans;

    planing is in fact an ACTION

    your post fails and is destroyed and facts win again
    Last edited by AGENT J; 12-04-14 at 06:34 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

  4. #204
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    okla-freakin-homa
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    12,619

    Re: Utah man gets maximum sentence in hate crime case

    Quote Originally Posted by Libertie76 View Post
    You're right but let's just assume a group of white people were reported yelling kill all black people by witnesses before killing a black guy with his wife. Also, it's pretty obvious they targeted him because he is white. Personally I think hate crime law should not even exist. I do not agree with racism in the slightest but I also don't think we should legally punish people for motivation. The scumbag threatening the family deserves to be arrested on charges pertaining to the threat and causing fear in the family's life but not charged on his own personal motivation. Just as the people killing zemir begic should be charged with murder but not hate crime. Now the Bosnians in the St. Louis area feel like they aren't properly represented by the authorities because they won't charge the teens with hate crime. This shows that charging people based on thought will only cause more division.
    When you ASS-U-ME you set yourself up for a fail.

    We have seen where dozens of 'eyewitnesses' were determined to be wrong. You miss the difference between 'reported' and 'determined'. Might want to work on that.

    The legal system uses motivation all the time. Murder isn't a one bin of sin. We have degrees based on intent and premeditation. The motivation is ALWAYS a factor.

    IF and it is a huge if, IF you want to use the hate crime laws as an example of division- it isn't that they exist but rather that a great deal of discretion is given to their enforcement.

  5. #205
    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
    well since you are not interested in learning, honest discussion, have trouble with english, cant admit you lost to facts or even facts themselves Im not going to try and help and fix your mistakes anymore. Ill just leave it here to further expose youer failed and factually proven wrong post. you post fails and fact win again.

    lets go over the facts

    your statement was wrong and the factual answer to your question is yes. Fact
    hate crime is not a thought crime and there are many other crimes that assess motive there has to be ACTION. fact

    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

    facts, laws and definitions all prove you wrong, please tell us what you have that support your failed and proven wrong claims

    in you reply post FACTS that make your claims right, your OPINIONS are meanignless
    Fact your counter argument is wrong Responding to Bigotry and Intergroup Strife on Campus: Guide for College and University Administrators

    Why not look at the adl definition of hate crime for me ok? Your definition is different Fact

    Your assumption is wrong Fact

    The hate crime is a crime motivated by the bias of the victims identity fact

    Of course if you change the definition of victim from being the actual victim to something like property then you can change the definition of hate crime

  6. #206
    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
    I think this is my favorite example of the inability to understand facts, english and or dishonesty in your posts

    did you really just type that and you thought it would be taken seriously?


    lets look at the dictionary

    Planning - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
    planning
    : the act or process of making or carrying out plans;

    planing is in fact an ACTION

    your post fails and is destroyed and facts win again
    This is the way you twist things around to try to make things fit that don't

    think·ing (thngkng)
    n.
    1. The act or practice of one that thinks; thought.
    2. A way of reasoning; judgment: To my thinking, this is not a good idea.
    adj.
    Characterized by thought or thoughtfulness; rational: We are thinking animals.

    So thinking is an action correct? Then by you definition of example a hate crime can only happen after an action then by this scenario, "I was motivated to think about killing him because he was black" is a hate crime
    Last edited by Libertie76; 12-04-14 at 08:44 AM.

  7. #207
    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.)Why not look at the adl definition of hate crime for me ok? Your definition is different Fact
    2.)Your assumption is wrong Fact
    3.)The hate crime is a crime motivated by the bias of the victims identity fact
    Of course if you change the definition of victim from being the actual victim to something like property then you can change the definition of hate crime
    1-3) not a fact

    how did i know you would dodge the questions lol
    sorry i have no interest in thier website, why? they have no LEGAL power to WRITE and DETERMINE laws.
    US government does not answer to them lol if you were from america you would know this.
    I can post he OPINIONS of the Family Research Council saying gay marriage is not equal rights, just like your opinion thats meaningless.
    what a complete failure, once again your post is destroyed and fact win again

    maybe in your NEXT post you provide FACTS that support you and not meaningless talking points and opinions

    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

    facts, laws and definitions all prove you wrong, please tell us what you have that support your failed and proven wrong claims

    in you reply post FACTS that make your claims right, your OPINIONS are meanignless
    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

  8. #208
    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 notquiteright View Post
    When you ASS-U-ME you set yourself up for a fail.

    We have seen where dozens of 'eyewitnesses' were determined to be wrong. You miss the difference between 'reported' and 'determined'. Might want to work on that.

    The legal system uses motivation all the time. Murder isn't a one bin of sin. We have degrees based on intent and premeditation. The motivation is ALWAYS a factor.

    IF and it is a huge if, IF you want to use the hate crime laws as an example of division- it isn't that they exist but rather that a great deal of discretion is given to their enforcement.
    It's not the suggestion that they were right, it's the suggestion that according to events taking place that weekend and the witness accounts authorities should legally investigate it as a hate crime but they are refusing to do so.

    Yea I agree with you, but if would also further go forward and suggest that hate crime laws will initially sub categorize groups even further then the category that counts and that's Americans. It' nature is to represent people differently according to the persons difference. Well as we have seen since the creation of hate crime laws more people feel less represented equally for broader and broader differences and this will be a cause for divison

  9. #209
    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
    1-3) not a fact

    how did i know you would dodge the questions lol
    sorry i have no interest in thier website, why? they have no LEGAL power to WRITE and DETERMINE laws.
    US government does not answer to them lol if you were from america you would know this.
    I can post he OPINIONS of the Family Research Council saying gay marriage is not equal rights, just like your opinion thats meaningless.
    what a complete failure, once again your post is destroyed and fact win again

    maybe in your NEXT post you provide FACTS that support you and not meaningless talking points and opinions

    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

    facts, laws and definitions all prove you wrong, please tell us what you have that support your failed and proven wrong claims

    in you reply post FACTS that make your claims right, your OPINIONS are meanignless
    What about the duhaime definition Hate Crime Legal Definition ?

  10. #210
    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
    This is the way you twist things around to try to make things fit that don't

    think·ing (thngkng)
    n.
    1. The act or practice of one that thinks; thought.
    2. A way of reasoning; judgment: To my thinking, this is not a good idea.
    adj.
    Characterized by thought or thoughtfulness; rational: We are thinking animals.

    So thinking is an action correct? Then by you definition of example a hate crime can only happen after an action then by this scenario, "I was motivated to think about killing him because he was black" is a hate crime
    yes if you understood english by definition thinking is an action again this is why i know english isn't your first language.
    are you telling me we are supposed to say the dictionary is wrong?
    wow are you seriously denying planning is an action? law and facts and definitions all prove you wrong

    you do know this is a legal discussion?
    wow talking about completely owning your own posts

    ok here we go, this will let everybody know the integrity of your posts and the honesty of them

    its a yes no question

    by law and definition is planning an ACTION . . yes or no
    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 21 of 31 FirstFirst ... 111920212223 ... 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
  •