Page 9 of 31 FirstFirst ... 789101119 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 306

Thread: Utah man gets maximum sentence in hate crime case

  1. #81
    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 Hatuey View Post
    So... what you're saying is that... for murder 1 and murder 2.... it's the thought process that goes into each that counts?
    What I'm saying is that for murder one it's a higher level of severity due to the level of foreknowledge of the crime. However it's the same crime. You charge someone with murder 1 but it can be dropped to murder two depending on level of foreknowledge. You however can't charge murder 1 and murder 2 at the same time, why? Because it's the same crime based on level of severity.

    However, you can charge someone with murder1 and a hate crime because they are two different crimes, murder 1 is the crime based on the amount of foreknowledge or forethought, hate crime is based on the actual bias you have to the person, or your own thoughts of the person based on prejudices which is crime based solely on your thought processes. If there was a higher punishment in murder cases because you intended to terrorize a race I would agree to that, however an additional charge or additional crime is completely based crime on thought.

  2. #82
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,019

    Re: Utah man gets maximum sentence in hate crime case

    Quote Originally Posted by Libertie76 View Post
    What I'm saying is that for murder one it's a higher level of severity due to the level of foreknowledge of the crime. However it's the same crime. You charge someone with murder 1 but it can be dropped to murder two depending on level of foreknowledge. You however can't charge murder 1 and murder 2 at the same time, why? Because it's the same crime based on level of severity.

    However, you can charge someone with murder1 and a hate crime because they are two different crimes, murder 1 is the crime based on the amount of foreknowledge or forethought, hate crime is based on the actual bias you have to the person, or your own thoughts of the person based on prejudices which is crime based solely on your thought processes. If there was a higher punishment in murder cases because you intended to terrorize a race I would agree to that, however an additional barge or additional crime is completely based crime on thought.
    That has nothing to do with what I asked. You stated that it was the amount of thinking and planning which went into a crime which made a difference. Would you say that doesn't constitute the thought that went into the crime? As to your second point, that's pretty much what I'm asking you about. M1 carries a tougher sentence than M2 because (according to you) thought makes a difference. How is that different than being charged for both a hate crime and assault at the same time? Are you more likely to get a job after being convicted for 3 assaults as opposed to 3 assaults and a hate crime? What palpable difference does the additional charge of a hate crime make other than showing the severity of your crime and giving you more jail time?
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  3. #83
    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 Hatuey View Post
    That has nothing to do with what I asked. You stated that it was the amount of thinking and planning which went into a crime which made a difference. Would you say that doesn't constitute the thought that went into the crime? As to your second point, that's pretty much what I'm asking you about. M1 carries a tougher sentence than M2 because (according to you) thought makes a difference. How is that different than being charged for both a hate crime and assault at the same time? Are you more likely to get a job after being convicted for 3 assaults as opposed to 3 assaults and a hate crime? What palpable difference does the additional charge of a hate crime make other than showing the severity of your crime and giving you more jail time?
    It has everything to do with your question because it's dictating severity of the crime based on forethought and the inherent heinousness of the crime. It's not an additional charge like a hate crime. The hate crime is a charge solely on your personal thoughts. Murder 1 and murder 2 are he levels of severity in regards to the murder charges.

    Thought makes a difference in the punishment of a crime however thought itself should not be a crime. The difference is that your given an additional charge solely based on your thought

    You can threaten to beat someone up and be given a misdemeanor, however if the attorneys can prove you have a racial bias towards that person your given a misdemeanor threat charge but also the felony hate crime charge as well. It's the punishment for thought and solely thought.

  4. #84
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,019

    Re: Utah man gets maximum sentence in hate crime case

    Quote Originally Posted by Libertie76 View Post
    It has everything to do with your question because it's dictating severity of the crime based on forethought and the inherent heinousness of the crime.
    Eh... that's what delineating a difference between M1 and M2 does too.....

    It's not an additional charge like a hate crime. The hate crime is a charge solely on your personal thoughts.
    Yes, and the intent behind them as well as the forethought and heinousness of attacking a person solely because of their race, gender, creed etc.

    Murder 1 and murder 2 are he levels of severity in regards to the murder charges.
    And a hate crime charge is an added level of severity for another crime.

    Thought makes a difference in the punishment of a crime however thought itself should not be a crime. The difference is that your given an additional charge solely based on your thought
    Eh, you just admitted that thought goes into the equation when punishing someone for the act of killing.

    You can threaten to beat someone up and be given a misdemeanor, however if the attorneys can prove you have a racial bias towards that person your given a misdemeanor threat charge but also the felony hate crime charge as well. It's the punishment for thought and solely thought.
    That's not how hate crime charges work. Hell, hate crimes are probably the hardest types of crime to prove because bias is extremely hard to establish. For example, say black kid who one said "**** asians" and 4 hours jumps a white lady. From that one statement, there is very little which can actually be used to lay a hate crime charge. A person needs to have displayed quite a history of racial bias for hate crimes charges to even be considered. However, even then, if the kid does everything I mentioned and decides to take her wallet, most courts will ignore his racial bias and just charge him with theft and assault etc. Again, it's not as easy as you make it look and you're basically now saying that thought does and doesn't count.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  5. #85
    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 Hatuey View Post
    Eh... that's what delineating a difference between M1 and M2 does too.....



    Yes, and the intent behind them as well as the forethought and heinousness of attacking a person solely because of their race, gender, creed etc.



    And a hate crime charge is an added level of severity for another crime.



    Eh, you just admitted that thought goes into the equation when punishing someone for the act of killing.



    That's not how hate crime charges work. Hell, hate crimes are probably the hardest types of crime to prove because bias is extremely hard to establish. For example, say black kid who one said "**** asians" and 4 hours jumps a white lady. From that one statement, there is very little which can actually be used to lay a hate crime charge. A person needs to have displayed quite a history of racial bias for hate crimes charges to even be considered. However, even then, if the kid does everything I mentioned and decides to take her wallet, most courts will ignore his racial bias and just charge him with theft and assault etc. Again, it's not as easy as you make it look and you're basically now saying that thought does and doesn't count.
    It does ialready by deciding the level of severity due to the definition so why would we need additional law based on someone's personal politics? Thought crime I'm suggesting isn't a crime because of how much forethought of committing the crime or the amount of knowledge placed into executing the crime, it's based on the persons own political or social thoughts and actually charging that person with a crime solely because that thought and that motive existed

    It's a crime because a person has a personal thought politically.

    It's a crime based on thought and solely on thought,opening the door to more legislation to thought crimes. This kind of legislation is needed to charge other subversive groups that politically disagree with the modern power structure. Subversive groups like the American militia that is now defined as domestic terrorists. This law opens the door to more political abuse, whether the intentions are pure or not.

    Thought goes into the punishment based on the judges interpretation in regards to sentencing, however the thought itself is not the crime as opposed to a hate crime is an additional crime based on the persons thought

    Statistics show thousands of hate crime cases. These statistics show the amount of hate crime charges, even if the hate crime is dropped the divisional damage is done. Black people see ten times more hate crimes against blacks and think white racism is expanding, white people see blacks commit ten times more crime against whites but only 1 tenth is recorded as a racially based crime and then whites feel under represented causing racial division on both accounts. The politician expands the definition of hate crime covering more subjects and groups and so the politician gives government more authority when the statistics increase taking away the liberties of the citizenship. It's safe to say charging people with a crime because of that persons personal bias is a political action to legally force political agenda, and in the case of enlightenment liberalism these policies should not be accepted.

  6. #86
    Sage
    Bodhisattva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    New Zealand
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:48 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    63,853

    Re: Utah man gets maximum sentence in hate crime case

    Hate Crimes are an insult to those that are victims of crimes of equal victimhood that do not fall under Hate Crime status.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    I have pooped in public, even in public neighborhoods.
    Quote Originally Posted by Absentglare View Post
    You can successfully wipe your ass with toilet paper, that doesn't mean that you should.

  7. #87
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,787

    Re: Utah man gets maximum sentence in hate crime case

    Quote Originally Posted by Libertie76 View Post
    1.)"an instance of unorthodox or controversial thinking, considered as a criminal offence or as socially unacceptable" thought crime

    2.)
    the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
    "the brutal murder of a German holidaymaker"
    synonyms: killing, homicide, assassination, liquidation, extermination, execution, slaughter, butchery, massacre; More - murder

    Evidence comes forward such as the person dies and you can prove you had the intention and premeditation to kill the person in cases of aggravated assault... Different crimes doesn't disprove anything I've stated
    3.)I said based on a bias towards a group are you seriously trying to dispute this fact

    Ummm ok then?
    1.) false since that alone isnt a crme, thanks for proving the facts right and yourself wrong again
    2.) lol thats the dicitionary we are talkign about LAW
    m2 doesnt not require plotting, sorry you are still 100% factually wrong
    3.) you didnt state any fact
    "im" not disputing anything, the law says you are wrong because it do not have to be a "group"
    4.) yes its ok you are wrong again. Seriously how old are you and what country are you from because you have no clue about america

    here let me help you and further educate you again

    Second Degree Murder: Definition Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as: 1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion"; or 2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life. Second-degree murder may best be viewed as the middle ground between first-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter. - See more at: Second Degree Murder Overview - FindLaw
    again that fact remains your statement was wrong

    also check these links out, a "group" isnt necessary
    FBI — Overview
    Hate Crime | CRS | Department of Justice
    18 U.S. Code 249 - Hate crime acts | LII / Legal Information Institute

    once again we will be waiting for one single fact that makes it thought crime . .. . . one. . again please do not dodge it . . thanks
    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. #88
    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 since that alone isnt a crme, thanks for proving the facts right and yourself wrong again
    2.) lol thats the dicitionary we are talkign about LAW
    m2 doesnt not require plotting, sorry you are still 100% factually wrong
    3.) you didnt state any fact
    "im" not disputing anything, the law says you are wrong because it do not have to be a "group"
    4.) yes its ok you are wrong again. Seriously how old are you and what country are you from because you have no clue about america

    here let me help you and further educate you again



    again that fact remains your statement was wrong

    also check these links out, a "group" isnt necessary
    FBI — Overview
    Hate Crime | CRS | Department of Justice
    18 U.S. Code 249 - Hate crime acts | LII / Legal Information Institute

    once again we will be waiting for one single fact that makes it thought crime . .. . . one. . again please do not dodge it . . thanks
    1) it's still a crime on your thoughts, did you read anything I said? It's not 1984 level thought crime it is however still a crime against you because of your thoughts. You can charge someone with ag assault and murder because ag assault is defined differently then murder as two separate crimes. Just as a hate crime is a separate crime. Non of this is debatable

    2) I gave you the definition of murder, murder two is a separate circumstance where you can show you intended the harming of the individual but not the death, but that the action actually resulted in death. I already stated this

    3) now your just arguing for no inherent reason or showing any disproving facts about my original statement. Group what I mean by group is racial community. Ethnic group. Religious views, or the belonging to a religious sect. This argument your making is seriously childish

    Not premeditated or planned in the killing, but premeditated or intentions of harming the individual. The intentional killing of an individual is the lesser severity of the actual plotting. If you can prove the person intentionally wished to seek harm to the victim and the victim dies as a result it's murder 2. If you can show that the person intentionally wishes to kill the victim and the victim dies it's murder 1. I already stated this this is not debatable I don't know what your disproving by showing this.

    Ok already stated, many times. Don't dodge it? I haven't

  9. #89
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,787

    Re: Utah man gets maximum sentence in hate crime case

    Quote Originally Posted by Libertie76 View Post
    1) it's still a crime on your thoughts, did you read anything I said? It's not 1984 level thought crime it is however still a crime against you because of your thoughts. You can charge someone with ag assault and murder because ag assault is defined differently then murder as two separate crimes. Just as a hate crime is a separate crime. Non of this is debatable

    2) I gave you the definition of murder, murder two is a separate circumstance where you can show you intended the harming of the individual but not the death, but that the action actually resulted in death. I already stated this

    3) now your just arguing for no inherent reason or showing any disproving facts about my original statement. Group what I mean by group is racial community. Ethnic group. Religious views, or the belonging to a religious sect. This argument your making is seriously childish

    4.)Not premeditated or planned in the killing, but premeditated or intentions of harming the individual. The intentional killing of an individual is the lesser severity of the actual plotting. If you can prove the person intentionally wished to seek harm to the victim and the victim dies as a result it's murder 2. If you can show that the person intentionally wishes to kill the victim and the victim dies it's murder 1. I already stated this this is not debatable I don't know what your disproving by showing this.

    5.) Ok already stated, many times. Don't dodge it? I haven't
    1.) i read everythign you said and its all debatable because you cant back it up with anything. You havent provide one thing that makes this a thought crime and not other crimes, you are making it up based on your own subjective opinions and nothing else.

    your opinion is meaningless im asking for facts

    2.) LOL your statement said MURDER, period it didnt say m1 or m2 or m3 it said murder and then talked about manslaughter. Your statement was and still is factually wrong.

    3.) wrong again, im not arguing just pointing out your statement is factually wrong. If that bothers you correct your statement or don't make inaccurate ones. Deflect and try failed insults if you want but again there is no argument and your statement was inaccurate. facts, laws and definitions all prove that.

    4.) strawman thats not being discussed. wow

    5.) no you keep talking in circles without being ONE single fact to the table that makes it a thought crime, please do so
    also please educate yourself on american laws and rights because you do not understand them

    lets reflect so you dont repost more inaccurate and factually proven wrong things
    murder does not have to be preplotted, fact, proven by definition and law
    hate crime does not have to be a group, fact, proven by definition and law
    calling a hate crime a thought crime is ONLY your opinion and nothing more

    if you disagree once again simple provide ONE fact that makes your statement true . . . .one
    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

  10. #90
    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 read everythign you said and its all debatable because you cant back it up with anything. You havent provide one thing that makes this a thought crime and not other crimes, you are making it up based on your own subjective opinions and nothing else.

    your opinion is meaningless im asking for facts

    2.) LOL your statement said MURDER, period it didnt say m1 or m2 or m3 it said murder and then talked about manslaughter. Your statement was and still is factually wrong.

    3.) wrong again, im not arguing just pointing out your statement is factually wrong. If that bothers you correct your statement or don't make inaccurate ones. Deflect and try failed insults if you want but again there is no argument and your statement was inaccurate. facts, laws and definitions all prove that.

    4.) strawman thats not being discussed. wow

    5.) no you keep talking in circles without being ONE single fact to the table that makes it a thought crime, please do so
    also please educate yourself on american laws and rights because you do not understand them

    lets reflect so you dont repost more inaccurate and factually proven wrong things
    murder does not have to be preplotted, fact, proven by definition and law
    hate crime does not have to be a group, fact, proven by definition and law
    calling a hate crime a thought crime is ONLY your opinion and nothing more

    if you disagree once again simple provide ONE fact that makes your statement true . . . .one
    It violates the 14th amendment because it shows that we care less about an assault victim then we care about one who is a victim in a "federally protected category" such as race and gender.

    it converts actions into thought crimes on the basis that it creates an additional charge simply based on the perpetrators personal bias towards the victims identity. That personal bias is the thoughts, or the opinions of the perpetrator. Again its not the difference between m1 and m2. Its not the measurement of the severity its the actual opinion of the perpetrator that is being charged on him/her

    You are able to be charged with a hate crime through non violent crime offenses such as intimidation or threatening. This also shows that it doesn't need to be an actual physical conflict to conclude a hate crime. If you state "f you im going to hurt you" you're threatening some one, if you say "f you im going to hurt you n-word" your threatening some one and showing your personal bias towards that individuals race. The showing of a personal bias towards a race constitutes it as a hate crime. Which it then intensifies and creates an additional category of charges solely on personal opinions and personal bias. Not additional charges simply because the severity. Not level charges such as Murder 1 or Murder 2, but whole new charges based completely on opinion and thought

    My arguments you've been trying to "disprove" seriously have absolutley nothing with what we're even discussing.

    Fact: Already stated murder doesnt have to be preplotted, i said the level of severity in regards to forethought. If you intentionally harm some one and it results in the persons death its murder. That intentionally harming is the severity of the forethought already stated several posts ago hasnt been "disproven" by you

    Fact: Race, sexual orientation are all terms to classify people into specific groups. I.E. i am part of the Yugoslavian community because i am ethnically Yugoslavian. The Yugoslavian community is a group. You are seriously only arguing this because you want to argue.

    Fact: The personal bias, opinions, or thoughts of the accused become put on trial during hate crime cases. Causing his Thoughts to be the crime. You accuse some one of a hate crime you have to prove that he thinks, has opinions, shows bias in the matter you are accusing him of. The level of severity becomes in question in regards to things like murder and assault, and a judge can say due to the nature we give a maximun punishment. However, the personal bias of the person gets put on trial the minute you charge him/her with a hate crime.

Page 9 of 31 FirstFirst ... 789101119 ... 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
  •