• 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!

Utah man gets maximum sentence in hate crime case

So you somehow more of a victim because the crime was motivated by race?
 
AGENT J said:
white males are also in the protected group :shrug:
seems you dont understand the law or what hate crimes are
Click to expand...

So will the government pursue the charge if the victim was white just as often if the victim was black?
 
Henrin said:
So will the government pursue the charge if the victim was white just as often if the victim was black?
Click to expand...

which race doesn't matter facts and evidence does on whether the crime was committed
 
AGENT J said:
which race doesn't matter facts and evidence does on whether the crime was committed
Click to expand...

Ok, so according to you the chances the government will pursue the charge if the victim was white is no less or more than if the victim was black. Do you have any evidence to support that?
 
Henrin said:
Ok, so according to you the chances the government will pursue the charge if the victim was white is no less or more than if the victim was black. Do you have any evidence to support that?
Click to expand...

LMAO not what i said, i said your question didnt matter to the law and crime
if you think the government will be bias thats you job to prove it not mine because i didnt make the claim nor care about it since it doesn't matter to facts, laws and crime. :shrug:

good luck!
 
Libertie76 said:
No I don't agree, I believe in that case the Christian community of the area falls victim to the usage of terror by the assailant.
Click to expand...

This is why we should have hate crime legislation, the definitions are far too floppy.
 
AGENT J said:
and that is 100% factually false based on legality.
Its an OPINION you are allowed to have but we are talkign facts and laws so your opinion is meaningless.
LEGALLY what could the christian community do? could they press charges based on them being chrisitian? nope

they are factually not the victiums

anyway moing on from your mistake

its fact its a hate crime
its a fact the owner is a victium

your false and proven wrong claim is there can only be a hate crime if there is a biased towards the victim's identity

well what if the owner was mark zuckerberg? an atheist

or better yet a corporation, say facebook owned it and the property, an atheist corporation.

well the IDENTITY of the victim is atheist and therefore the crime would not be against the victim's identity but it would still be a hate crime by definition.
Like i said facts, laws and the crims definition all prove you wrong and you have nothign on your side besides "nu-huh", this fact wont change

you're welcome
facts win again
Click to expand...


The whole purpose of hate crime legislation is to prevent the prejudice attacks to victimize a whole community based on certain categories such as race or religion.

If the assailant burned down a church because he was a psychotic arsonist who enjoyed burning down churches then it wouldn't be a hate crime

If the assailant did it to spark fear in the minds of the Christians belonging to the church he effectively victimizes the entire Christian community. This is the entire reason for hate crime legislation.

However, your suggestion was that it wasn't based on the motivation of a bias towards the victim, even if the "legal" victim is the property owner who happens to be an atheist the argument could still suggest that considering he owned a Christian church he identifies as a entrepreneur of the Christian faith, regardless of his own beliefs. That identity is still being targeted by the actual case of this hypothetical situation.

Case point, I am a white guy who supports n.a.a.c.p and am targeted for such, with a crime of intimidation. It's because I identify as a supporter of the n.a.a.c.p that I'm targeted on the basis of the assailants bias towards my identity politically in regards towards my support for the n.a.a.c.p hate crime legislation is in regards to the attempt to prevent e emotional stress or fear given to the community of let's say white people who support n.a.a.c.p, or what you say Christians belonging to the church

Your hypothetical question really holds no water, the owner of the church would still be victimized based on his identity of a church holder, motivated by the bias of the assailant. You have no clue what your talking about and your reaching for something that you can't prove.
 
Ikari said:
This is why we should have hate crime legislation, the definitions are far too floppy.
Click to expand...

We shouldn't have hate crime legislation because it opens the door to more intense thought crimes, at least my reasoning for not having the laws.

I'm not arguing that the intention of the legislation is for good reasons, however it turns violent crime into violent crime based on thought creating a grey area, or opening to door towards more efficient thought crimes in destroying political opposition for the a users of government.
 
Libertie76 said:
The whole purpose of hate crime legislation is to prevent the prejudice attacks to victimize a whole community based on certain categories such as race or religion.

If the assailant burned down a church because he was a psychotic arsonist who enjoyed burning down churches then it wouldn't be a hate crime

If the assailant did it to spark fear in the minds of the Christians belonging to the church he effectively victimizes the entire Christian community. This is the entire reason for hate crime legislation.

However, your suggestion was that it wasn't based on the motivation of a bias towards the victim, even if the "legal" victim is the property owner who happens to be an atheist the argument could still suggest that considering he owned a Christian church he identifies as a entrepreneur of the Christian faith, regardless of his own beliefs. That identity is still being targeted by the actual case of this hypothetical situation.

Case point, I am a white guy who supports n.a.a.c.p and am targeted for such, with a crime of intimidation. It's because I identify as a supporter of the n.a.a.c.p that I'm targeted on the basis of the assailants bias towards my identity politically in regards towards my support for the n.a.a.c.p hate crime legislation is in regards to the attempt to prevent e emotional stress or fear given to the community of let's say white people who support n.a.a.c.p, or what you say Christians belonging to the church

Your hypothetical question really holds no water, the owner of the church would still be victimized based on his identity of a church holder, motivated by the bias of the assailant. You have no clue what your talking about and your reaching for something that you can't prove.
Click to expand...
your statement was factually wrong and the answer is still factually yes . . .theres no amount of your opinions that will change that fact.

thats a nice long post that changes ZERO facts, laws and how the crimes is defined lol its meaningless. Like i said law, facts and the definition of the crime all prove you wrong. Theres nothing on your side but your feelings and opinions. keep trying though its ha;larious watching you argue against facts and definitions.

your post fails and facts win again
 
AGENT J said:
your statement was factually wrong and the answer is still factually yes . . .theres no amount of your opinions that will change that fact.

thats a nice long post that changes ZERO facts, laws and how the crimes is defined lol its meaningless. Like i said law, facts and the definition of the crime all prove you wrong. Theres nothing on your side but your feelings and opinions. keep trying though its ha;larious watching you argue against facts and definitions.

your post fails and facts win again
Click to expand...

Tell me how in your hypothetical case of mark zuckerberg owning a church that was burned down for the purpose of hating Christians isn't victimizing him for his identity of being an entrepreneur of Christianity by owning churches based on the bias of being anti Christian.
 
Ikari said:
Quite so. It's about the infringement of rights, not the multitude of stupid reasons as to why one decided to infringe upon the rights of others.
Click to expand...

EDIT: Agreed...
 
AGENT J said:
you didnt answer the question
and as far as what you just said above that is only true if they dont break hate crime laws

EVERY person to break hate crime laws is an average person based on gender, race etc
Click to expand...
Again when average person makes a threat of violence against other average person not of a protected class they are not charged with a hate crime law. They are charged with making criminal threat. Calling it a hate crime is basically a piss poor excuse to tack on extra punishment and give a protected class of people more justice for the same crime. Justice is supposed to be blind.So a person's financial status,race, gender or what ever should be totally irrelevant. A white man who makes a threat of violence against another white man should be treated no different than white man who makes a threat of violence against another person because of financial status, position in society, race or anything else.
 
jamesrage said:
Again when average person makes a threat of violence against other average person not of a protected class they are not charged with a hate crime law. They are charged with making criminal threat. Calling it a hate crime is basically a piss poor excuse to tack on extra punishment and give a protected class of people more justice for the same crime. Justice is supposed to be blind.So a person's financial status,race, gender or what ever should be totally irrelevant. A white man who makes a threat of violence against another white man should be treated no different than white man who makes a threat of violence against another person because of financial status, position in society, race or anything else.
Click to expand...

This also breaks the equal protection clause in the 14th amendment because it makes certain groups protected more thoroughly then others. If Im A target of a white racist I should be protected by the same law then if a black is targeted by a white racist, or vice versa. It differentiates more protection for people based on sub groups and perpetrators thoughts.
 
Libertie76 said:
Tell me how in your hypothetical case of mark zuckerberg owning a church that was burned down for the purpose of hating Christians isn't victimizing him for his identity of being an entrepreneur of Christianity by owning churches based on the bias of being anti Christian.
Click to expand...

simple

because the hate crime was the bigotry was against christianity, Mark nor facebook is christian, that is not thier "identity". Thats a LEGAL fact. there is no such legal term or classification in hate crime as entrepreneur of Christianity. DO you see entrepreneur of Christianity in the hate crime definition? NOPE.
there is no amount of your opinion that will change these facts or the definition of hate crime. You statement was wrong and unless they change the law it will always be wrong. PLEASE keep trying though, thanks.

sorry once again your post fails and facts win
 
jamesrage said:
Again when average person makes a threat of violence against other average person not of a protected class they are not charged with a hate crime law. They are charged with making criminal threat. Calling it a hate crime is basically a piss poor excuse to tack on extra punishment and give a protected class of people more justice for the same crime. Justice is supposed to be blind.So a person's financial status,race, gender or what ever should be totally irrelevant. A white man who makes a threat of violence against another white man should be treated no different than white man who makes a threat of violence against another person because of financial status, position in society, race or anything else.
Click to expand...

what protected class are you talking about we ALL belong to one . . .all of us . . .
yes it is EXTRA punishment like MANY MANY laws are but its not based on special treatment of classes since we all belong to them . . thats just factually false and silly
 
AGENT J said:
simple

because the hate crime was the bigotry was against christianity, Mark nor facebook is christian, that is not thier "identity". Thats a LEGAL fact. there is no such legal term or classification in hate crime as entrepreneur of Christianity. DO you see entrepreneur of Christianity in the hate crime definition? NOPE.
there is no amount of your opinion that will change these facts or the definition of hate crime. You statement was wrong and unless they change the law it will always be wrong. PLEASE keep tryign though, thanks.

sorry once again your post fails and facts win
Click to expand...

No but the definition of hate crime is the targeting with the motivation of prejudices. Mark owning a church is a victim of the crime because he owns a church, his identity in the hypothesis is owner of a church and he is victimized by the motivational bias of anti Christianity even if he doesn't believe it. If I own a house and I have black friends over and the kkk burns slashes my tire it's a hate crime because my property was targeted on the basis of the kkk hatred for blacks. I am then turned into a victim because of my identity of a white person be friending blacks.
 
Libertie76 said:
This also breaks the equal protection clause in the 14th amendment because it makes certain groups protected more thoroughly then others. If Im A target of a white racist I should be protected by the same law then if a black is targeted by a white racist, or vice versa. It differentiates more protection for people based on sub groups and perpetrators thoughts.
Click to expand...

further proof you dont understand the law
what groups? and what MORE protection?
 
Libertie76 said:
No but the definition of hate crime is the targeting with the motivation of prejudices. Mark owning a church is a victim of the crime because he owns a church, his identity in the hypothesis is owner of a church and he is victimized by the motivational bias of anti Christianity even if he doesn't believe it. If I own a house and I have black friends over and the kkk burns slashes my tire it's a hate crime because my property was targeted on the basis of the kkk hatred for blacks. I am then turned into a victim because of my identity of a white person be friending blacks.
Click to expand...

yes based on DEFINED criteria that the victim doesn't fit hence why the definition destroys your false claims and proves them wrong
sorry unless you write congress and they change the definition of the law you will continue to be wrong. Your opinion will never change facts. You cant just make up gorups and apply it LMAO There is NOTHING on your side, every attempt will fail.

your post fails and facts win again
 
AGENT J said:
Utah man gets maximum sentence in hate crime case - The Washington Post



I dont even know what to say about this . . . its just sad that these people still exist and its even worse they dont understand the law, rights and freedoms that we have as americans.

FBI — Utah Man Pleads Guilty to Federal Hate Crime for Threatening Interracial Family


Utah man gets maximum sentence in hate crime case - The Washington Post
Hurricane man sentenced in hate crime case | fox13now.com
Utah man gets maximum sentence in hate crime case
Click to expand...

Things like this piss me off. He threatened the lives of two people. That is a crime and prosecutable in his state. He did not interfere with their housing rights, and how he felt about them is entirely irrelevant. And yet he got charged with the latter.
 
AGENT J said:
what protected class are you talking about we ALL belong to one . . .all of us . . .
yes it is EXTRA punishment like MANY MANY laws are but its not based on special treatment of classes since we all belong to them . . thats just factually false and silly
Click to expand...

These same people who tolerate hate crime laws would be screaming bloody murder if someone who assaulted a rich person was charged with a hate crime law for assaulting a rich person.
 
AGENT J said:
yes based on DEFINED criteria that the victim doesn't fit hence why the definition destroys your false claims and proves them wrong
sorry unless you write congress and they change the definition of the law you will continue to be wrong. Your opinion will never change facts. You cant just make up gorups and apply it LMAO There is NOTHING on your side, every attempt will fail.

your post fails and facts win again
Click to expand...

Well if I own a business I'm identified as a business owner, if I own a church I'm identified as a church owner. If my church gets burned down because of a bias towards Christianity I am a victim because of my identity of a church owner regardless of my own personal belief. If my business gets burned down because I hire black people I'm a victim because of my identity as a business owner who hires blacks. This simple explanation proves that your hypothetical situation still doesn't negate my definition of a hate crime being a crime against someone on the motivation of being bias towards a victims identity. Even if the victim defines themselves in a different manner their identity still falls into the presumption of church owner

To further my explanation, when someone is brought up on hate crime charges because he did something illegal with the motivation of that bias you would have to prove his initial prejudice. Doing so, puts the case of personal opinion the actual basis for the court case, at least the basis for the charges of hate crime. If you charge him with murder and a hate crime you have to prove that the assailant murdered the person, and that the persons opinions reflect that of being prejudice in the manner pertaining to the crime. Which makes it a separate crime based solely on thought, causing it to be a thought crime.

You can't charge someone with a hate crime if the person doesn't have a predisposition to the bias in question. You have to prove the person thinks this certain way. Your example doesn't disprove this in the slightest it's an attempt to destroy my argument by focusing on things like " well maybe the victim doesn't necessarily fall into the prejudice" it still doesn't change the fact that the entire scope of a hate crime case is on the basis of the perpetrators opinion on race, sex etc etc.
 
AGENT J said:
further proof you dont understand the law
what groups? and what MORE protection?
Click to expand...

A black person who is the victim of a racist white robbing him has more protection under the charges against the assailant then I do if I get robbed by the same person. Not debatable.

Certain groups meaning in cases of difference in thought someone is more protected by law under the political opinions of the assailant then others. It gives more dominant protection based solely on race, sexual orientation etc.etc

My example shows this
 
Redress said:
Things like this piss me off. He threatened the lives of two people. That is a crime and prosecutable in his state. He did not interfere with their housing rights, and how he felt about them is entirely irrelevant. And yet he got charged with the latter.
Click to expand...

not me, i agree with the courts assessment of how hate crimes deserve extra scrutiny just like many other laws use motivation and reason to asses the severity of the original charge or to add more charges. But you are free to not like it.
 
jamesrage said:
These same people who tolerate hate crime laws would be screaming bloody murder if someone who assaulted a rich person was charged with a hate crime law for assaulting a rich person.
Click to expand...

so you have no answer? i didn't think so
 
Libertie76 said:
Well if I own a business I'm identified as a business owner, if I own a church I'm identified as a church owner. If my church gets burned down because of a bias towards Christianity I am a victim because of my identity of a church owner regardless of my own personal belief. If my business gets burned down because I hire black people I'm a victim because of my identity as a business owner who hires blacks. This simple explanation proves that your hypothetical situation still doesn't negate my definition of a hate crime being a crime against someone on the motivation of being bias towards a victims identity. Even if the victim defines themselves in a different manner their identity still falls into the presumption of church owner

To further my explanation, when someone is brought up on hate crime charges because he did something illegal with the motivation of that bias you would have to prove his initial prejudice. Doing so, puts the case of personal opinion the actual basis for the court case, at least the basis for the charges of hate crime. If you charge him with murder and a hate crime you have to prove that the assailant murdered the person, and that the persons opinions reflect that of being prejudice in the manner pertaining to the crime. Which makes it a separate crime based solely on thought, causing it to be a thought crime.

You can't charge someone with a hate crime if the person doesn't have a predisposition to the bias in question. You have to prove the person thinks this certain way. Your example doesn't disprove this in the slightest it's an attempt to destroy my argument by focusing on things like " well maybe the victim doesn't necessarily fall into the prejudice" it still doesn't change the fact that the entire scope of a hate crime case is on the basis of the perpetrators opinion on race, sex etc etc.
Click to expand...

sorry none of these changes the definition of the law, your statement was still factually wrong that fact wont change
"church owner" isnt a listed criteria LMAO
let me know when you can present anythign that change the definition of hate crimes and proves the facts all wrong . . anything . . .heck . . ONE thing . . one fact that would make me ignore the law, and crime definitions and criteria and use your unsupportable opinion instead . . .
you cant do it and will never be able to
Its awesome you keep arguing against facts and losing

your post fails and facts win again
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom