Page 3 of 31 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 306

Thread: Utah man gets maximum sentence in hate crime case

  1. #21
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,790

    Re: Utah man gets maximum sentence in hate crime case

    Quote Originally Posted by Libertie76 View Post
    1.)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.
    2.) Also, it's pretty obvious they targeted him because he is white.
    3.) 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.
    4.) 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.
    5.) Just as the people killing zemir begic should be charged with murder but not hate crime.
    6.) 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.
    7.) This shows that charging people based on thought will only cause more division.
    1.) i dont understand legally you just asked me the same question so my answer doesn't change
    2.) obvious only matters if its based on evidence and facts
    3.) motivation is VERY important in many crimes. FOr example it can be the difference between self defense and murder.
    do you not agree with self defence vs murder 1 vs 2 vs involuntary manslaughter either?

    that would be a pretty ****ty law system in my opinion
    4.) i disagree, especially when the crime could logically be consider worse, more dangerous etc.

    like threats (ill punch you) vs terroristic threats (ill burn down the white house), or negligence (didnt fix my broken stairs at a business) vs gross negligence (didnt make sure i was gave any of my patients the right meds)

    its very important to take motivation, thoughts and scale and reasonings into play in many cases/laws

    5.) if theres evidence for it i think they should just like like levels of other crimes
    6.) well feelings dont really matter, again its about evidence. Many people have feelings about laws etc that dont matter.
    7.) no it simply shows people will value thier opinions over facts and laws. Any division is created by subjective opinions not law.
    Last edited by AGENT J; 12-02-14 at 07:28 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

  2. #22
    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.) i dont understand legally you just asked me the same question so my answer doesn't change
    2.) obvious only matters if its based on evidence and facts
    3.) motivation is VERY important in many crimes. FOr example it can be the difference between self defense and murder.
    do you not agree with self defence vs murder 1 vs 2 vs involuntary manslaughter either?

    that would be a pretty ****ty law system in my opinion
    4.) i disagree, especially when the crime could logically be consider worse, more dangerous etc.

    like threats (ill punch you) vs terroristic threats (ill burn down the white house), or negligence (didnt fix my broken stairs at a business) vs gross negligence (didnt make sure i was gave any of my patients the right meds)

    its very important to take motivation, thoughts and scale and reasonings into play in many cases/laws

    5.) if theres evidence for it i think they should just like like levels of other crimes
    6.) well feelings dont really matter, again its about evidence. Many people have feelings about laws etc that dont matter.
    7.) no it simply shows people will value thier opinions over facts and laws. Any division is created by subjective opinions not law.
    If I'm a communist and I attack someone because they are a nazi is that a hate crime

  3. #23
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,790

    Re: Utah man gets maximum sentence in hate crime case

    Quote Originally Posted by Libertie76 View Post
    If I'm a communist and I attack someone because they are a nazi is that a hate crime
    dont know?
    once again it would depend on law and evidence.

    What part are you having trouble understanding?


    also you didnt answer my questions
    do you not agree with self defense vs murder 1 vs 2 vs involuntary manslaughter either?
    do you disagree with the fact that currently thoughts, motivation, scale and reasoning do play into law and you want that changed?
    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. #24
    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
    dont know?
    once again it would depend on law and evidence.

    What part are you having trouble understanding?


    also you didnt answer my questions
    do you not agree with self defense vs murder 1 vs 2 vs involuntary manslaughter either?
    do you disagree with the fact that currently thoughts, motivation, scale and reasoning do play into law and you want that changed?
    Plain and simple communist attacks nazi [I]because[I] he's a nazi, is that a hate crime yes or no

    The question is invalid because the presumption of motivation brings in the proof the actual plot of the killing rather then the actual killing. The courts suggest the plotting of killings more heinous then spontaneous killing, or even accidental killing. You're wife cheats on you and you spend a month plotting to kill her because she cheated on you is more heinous because you plotted it and devised a plan to execute the killing as opposed to you walked in on your wife cheating on you and killed her because you had a fit of rage. The question you are asking is taking two different crimes and trying to decide whether I agree with that based against self defense. Self defense isn't the same as murder, maybe manslaughter and there are cases where the actual self defense is exceeded by fits of anger and create manslaughter. You stab someone In the neck because they punched you is self defense but also can be argued manslaughter because you exceeded the level of violence. Now did you plot the killing of the person because they punched you or did you stab him in the neck because you were trying to defend yourself. Its based on the heinous of the crime not the thought. Did you stab him in the neck because you were in fear of your life or did you do it because you simply wanted to kill him. Maybe I misspoke because I generalized it with motivation I guess I should've stipulated political motivation should not be a crime In of itself.

    If someone kills another person because of their race or sexual orientation and the court suggests it's more heinous then so be it and I agree, however the actually laws of hate crime is the systematic crime of thought. You threaten someone because they are on a different football team in high school you are given a misdemeanor, you threaten someone because you have a prejudice towards them based on political or religious thought you now have a felony and you can't vote.

  5. #25
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,790

    Re: Utah man gets maximum sentence in hate crime case

    Quote Originally Posted by Libertie76 View Post
    1.) Plain and simple communist attacks nazi [I]because[I] he's a nazi, is that a hate crime yes or no

    2.)The question is invalid because the presumption of motivation brings in the proof the actual plot of the killing rather then the actual killing. The courts suggest the plotting of killings more heinous then spontaneous killing, or even accidental killing. You're wife cheats on you and you spend a month plotting to kill her because she cheated on you is more heinous because you plotted it and devised a plan to execute the killing as opposed to you walked in on your wife cheating on you and killed her because you had a fit of rage. The question you are asking is taking two different crimes and trying to decide whether I agree with that based against self defense. Self defense isn't the same as murder, maybe manslaughter and there are cases where the actual self defense is exceeded by fits of anger and create manslaughter. You stab someone In the neck because they punched you is self defense but also can be argued manslaughter because you exceeded the level of violence. Now did you plot the killing of the person because they punched you or did you stab him in the neck because you were trying to defend yourself. Its based on the heinous of the crime not the thought. Did you stab him in the neck because you were in fear of your life or did you do it because you simply wanted to kill him. Maybe I misspoke because I generalized it with motivation I guess I should've stipulated political motivation should not be a crime In of itself.

    If someone kills another person because of their race or sexual orientation and the court suggests it's more heinous then so be it and I agree, however the actually laws of hate crime is the systematic crime of thought. You threaten someone because they are on a different football team in high school you are given a misdemeanor, you threaten someone because you have a prejudice towards them based on political or religious thought you now have a felony and you can't vote.
    1.)its not a yes no question without knowing if the law in your area covers that under hate crime and if theres evidence to support it
    my answer stands

    2.)how did i know you would dodge the question lol
    thats a long post that says nothing to what i asked

    the question is in fact valid as court cases, law and facts already prove

    they are ALL examples of crimes that take into account thoughts, motivation, scale and reasoning . . . . do you agree with that or not?
    you claim was thought and motivation should be taken into account and im asking if you truly feel that way or just in the case of hate crimes

    this is the way the law already factually works, thats not up for debate, so do you agree with it or not?
    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

  6. #26
    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.)its not a yes no question without knowing if the law in your area covers that under hate crime and if theres evidence to support it
    my answer stands

    2.)how did i know you would dodge the question lol
    thats a long post that says nothing to what i asked

    the question is in fact valid as court cases, law and facts already prove

    they are ALL examples of crimes that take into account thoughts, motivation, scale and reasoning . . . . do you agree with that or not?
    you claim was thought and motivation should be taken into account and im asking if you truly feel that way or just in the case of hate crimes

    this is the way the law already factually works, thats not up for debate, so do you agree with it or not?
    You've exceeded yourself in terms of twisting arguments. How heinous the crime is based on motivation definitely should impact the punishment, as I stated motivation was an over generalization I made, and stipulated with my answer that political motivation should not be an extra crime of itself.

    It is a federal law, hate crimes. It is not based on area or region. The definition of a hate crime is "noun
    a crime motivated by racial, sexual, or other prejudice, typically one involving violence."

    Your answer stands because you refuse to answer the question that's actually very limited of you to dodge the question with "I don't know" according to the definition of hate crimes, and the statues of the federal hate crime laws political prejudice falls under the statements of the law. A communist attacking a nazi because he is a nazi is the exact same Thing as a nazi attacking a communist because he's a communist.

    The difference is the courts decide whether to charge someone according to the specific law. Such as, the killing of Michael brown makes people believe the charging of the officer with hate crime laws needs to be fulfilled or else the black community of ferguson doesn't feel represented, effectively causing more racial division when he is not indicted. Or, the Bosnian community of St. Louis feels the charging of the teenagers who murdered zemir begic with hate crime laws or else they will feel misrepresented. This is how hate crime laws create more division to suggest its subjective opinion is a ridiculous way to scape goat thought crimes. Jim Crow laws didn't divide people, subjective opinion did, really?

    Now, as I said with my answer, motivation should play in to the role of how heinous a crime is while committed, however motivation should not be a crime in of itself. You don't understand hate crime laws. Hate crime laws are additional charges. I murder you is murder, I murder you because your a different religion is a murder and a hate crime.

  7. #27
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,790

    Re: Utah man gets maximum sentence in hate crime case

    Quote Originally Posted by Libertie76 View Post
    1.)You've exceeded yourself in terms of twisting arguments.
    2.) How heinous the crime is based on motivation definitely should impact the punishment, as I stated motivation was an over generalization I made, and stipulated with my answer that political motivation should not be an extra crime of itself.
    3.)It is a federal law, hate crimes. It is not based on area or region. The definition of a hate crime is "noun
    a crime motivated by racial, sexual, or other prejudice, typically one involving violence."
    4.)Your answer stands because you refuse to answer the question that's actually very limited of you to dodge the question with "I don't know" according to the definition of hate crimes, and the statues of the federal hate crime laws political prejudice falls under the statements of the law. A communist attacking a nazi because he is a nazi is the exact same Thing as a nazi attacking a communist because he's a communist.
    5.)The difference is the courts decide whether to charge someone according to the specific law. Such as, the killing of Michael brown makes people believe the charging of the officer with hate crime laws needs to be fulfilled or else the black community of ferguson doesn't feel represented, effectively causing more racial division when he is not indicted. Or, the Bosnian community of St. Louis feels the charging of the teenagers who murdered zemir begic with hate crime laws or else they will feel misrepresented. This is how hate crime laws create more division to suggest its subjective opinion is a ridiculous way to scape goat thought crimes.
    6.)Jim Crow laws didn't divide people, subjective opinion did, really?
    7.)Now, as I said with my answer, motivation should play in to the role of how heinous a crime is while committed, however motivation should not be a crime in of itself.
    8.) You don't understand hate crime laws. Hate crime laws are additional charges. I murder you is murder, I murder you because your a different religion is a murder and a hate crime.
    1.) wrong again since i havent provided any arguments i simply pointed out the fact that thoughts, motivation, scale and reasoning are already taken into account for many laws and crimes. if you think i twisted anythign simply point it out instead of making stuff up
    2.) so you are retracting you original statments ans saying sometimes you think its ok and sometimes you dont. Got it.
    3.) then there you have it, if that is true and theres no sub/lower level laws (which i doubt but i dont know) then its not a hate crime based on law

    just like you punching a girl cause you think she is ugly isnt a hate crime but punching her cause she is gay could be
    4.) yes i know it stands and i didnt answer because based on what you gave me there was no answer, there was ZERO dodge, i honestly did not know what the info you provided lol that fact also cant be refuted
    5.) again feelings dont matter to rights and laws nor does the black community all agree so no division is cause by law its once again cause by people that simply think thier feelings matter more than law, rights and evidence.

    it is in fact subjective opinion and nothing more of people that dont value facts, laws and rights. There is ZERO scape goat there lol.
    the crime does in fact need evidence and without it it doesnt work work
    6.) LMAO jim crow laws =/= hate crime laws. Wow talking about desperation and somethign is not analogous and dishonest
    7.) so again you are changing your original statments, thank you
    8.)weird, i dont? wrong again since what you just said was pretty much my exact answer i gave earlier when i said, heere let me qoute myself

    Quote Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post

    in my opinion if it were up to me and those witnesses seemed credible and were willing to testify i would at least add hate crime to the charges and then it would be up to the jury to determine if the evidence was strong enough to stick. AGain it simply doesnt matter what i think.
    l
    your mistake again

    im glad you retracted and added to your original statements though and now i understand that you support thoughts, motivation, scale and reasoning being used and sometimes you dont.

    anythign else i can help you with?
    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. #28
    Sage

    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Pennsylvania, USA
    Last Seen
    02-08-17 @ 04:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    6,639

    Re: Utah man gets maximum sentence in hate crime case

    hate crimes, by definition involve perpetrators with a higher predisposition to recidivism.

  9. #29
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Utah man gets maximum sentence in hate crime case

    Quote Originally Posted by SlevinKelevra View Post
    hate crimes, by definition involve perpetrators with a higher predisposition to recidivism.
    Do they? How did that work out here? Had this dude been to jail? Do we know he's more likely to recommit?

    Hate crime legislation is stupid. The crime here is threatening the life of another, it makes no difference as to what retard motivation spurred the threat; it's the threat itself that counts.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  10. #30
    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.) wrong again since i havent provided any arguments i simply pointed out the fact that thoughts, motivation, scale and reasoning are already taken into account for many laws and crimes. if you think i twisted anythign simply point it out instead of making stuff up
    2.) so you are retracting you original statments ans saying sometimes you think its ok and sometimes you dont. Got it.
    3.) then there you have it, if that is true and theres no sub/lower level laws (which i doubt but i dont know) then its not a hate crime based on law

    just like you punching a girl cause you think she is ugly isnt a hate crime but punching her cause she is gay could be
    4.) yes i know it stands and i didnt answer because based on what you gave me there was no answer, there was ZERO dodge, i honestly did not know what the info you provided lol that fact also cant be refuted
    5.) again feelings dont matter to rights and laws nor does the black community all agree so no division is cause by law its once again cause by people that simply think thier feelings matter more than law, rights and evidence.

    it is in fact subjective opinion and nothing more of people that dont value facts, laws and rights. There is ZERO scape goat there lol.
    the crime does in fact need evidence and without it it doesnt work work
    6.) LMAO jim crow laws =/= hate crime laws. Wow talking about desperation and somethign is not analogous and dishonest
    7.) so again you are changing your original statments, thank you
    8.)weird, i dont? wrong again since what you just said was pretty much my exact answer i gave earlier when i said, heere let me qoute myself



    your mistake again

    im glad you retracted and added to your original statements though and now i understand that you support thoughts, motivation, scale and reasoning being used and sometimes you dont.

    anythign else i can help you with?
    1. I state motivation should not be a crime of itself. I suggest I misspoke because I said not charge based on motivation rather then crime of itself you did not prove any of this to be false, you actually started arguing with me for no inherent reason

    2. It's not "sometimes it's ok sometimes it's not" it's that we can't charge motivation itself but rather how heinous the crime is which is my point

    3. So attacking someone based on political thought is not a form of prejudice? What if you hate ugly people and that's why you punched her, is that now a hate crime? Or you think all black girls are ugly so you punch a black girl because she's ugly is that now a hate crime where does the line start and end?

    4. Info I provided is the inherent crime based on political prejudice and if that is a hate crime by definition, and you stated you don't know which shows how confusing and broad hate crime laws actually are

    5. It is opinion of the matter, yes, however my argument is that this policy causes more division which is shown with my examples that you aren't able to refute that it's the policy.

    6. No Jim Crow laws aren't hate crime laws but you stated subjective opinion causes division not laws.

    7. I'm not changing my original opinion, however I have suggested I over generalized, I should have been more specific and you're right about that. Now I still think motivation should not be a crime in of itself

    8. So you think motivation should be a crime of itself? Should a killer get a lesser sentence then a different killer because he lacked actual motivation and was just a psychopath? If no then shouldn't motivation be only in regards to certain aspects of the heinous crime itself? A white guy killing a black guy because he's black should be given more prison time due to how heinous that crime is. But that doesn't mean we should bring in thought crimes because when we fail to bring in those thought crimes it will undoubtedly bring in more division. Thanks for your attempt to help while refusing to answer my questions. I don't even know why you started trying to debate me in the first place I seriously just asked you a question.

Page 3 of 31 FirstFirst 1234513 ... 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
  •