1) crimes are plural advocating for separate crimes. The act of committing arson and the act of being motivated by the bias. Separate crimes
2) I stated that bigotry being the motive was the crime. Not bigotry. Nice attempt " insulting someone shows your lack of argument"
3) so it can increase the punishment but it's not a separate crime.
4.) In the case you suggested the burning of the church has two separate victims, according to you
5.) two separate charges, according to you,
6.) but it's not two separate crimes, according to you.
7.) No wonder you didn't advance in law school
8.) it wasn't "destroyed" it was attacked by a level of ignorance that I have only seen by people when they can't admit they were wrong.
9.) You stooped so low in your ignorance towards my claim you actually suggested the building itself was a victim and not the property owner just to try to prove you were right
10.) what if you get caught planning to blow up a synagogue because you hate Jews? Is that motivation without action?
11) it wasn't an assumption it was what we call in the political thinking world, cause and effect.
12.) You write a message that I perceive as a snide insult, I respond with a quote you make about how insulting someone shows your lack of argument.
13.) Just as I suggest hate crime laws cause more divison.
14.) Or charging someone with a crime based solely on motive begins thought crimes. Cause and effect.
1.) false without the first there is no second. Fact
2.) didnt insult you, nice try
yes and that statement is false unless it breaks laws. Bigotry itself or even as motive is NOT a crime unless a crime is actually committed.
You could be MOTIVATED to punch a guy cause he is black but you DONT actually act on that so there would be ZERO crime if there was no action/
glad i could clear that mistake up for you again
3.) correct
4.) false according to LAW, facts and definition of crimes (not me)
5.) false according to LAW, facts and definition of crimes (not me)
6.) correct according to LAW, facts and definition of crimes (not me)
7.) now THAT is a failed insult that makes me laugh cause it shows how desperate you are to be right when facts prove you wrong and it shows your anger over being wrong. Im only trying to hel you. Getting angry and trying to attack me and fail wont work it only further exposure your lack of education of american law rights and crimes on this topic.
also ANOTHER example of your english disconnect . . who said i went to law school? seems you have a real habit of making things up and assumptions things that are completely wrong.
8.) thread history, links to laws facts and definitions all prove this lie wrong :shrug:
9.) this is a bold face lie you just posted, in ever claimed any such thing. If you disagree simply quote me saying the building was the victim. You will fail because you just made it up but id love to see you try lol. In your next post quote me saying that lie, thanks
10.) planning is an action, again, english
11.) as already proven it was a wrong assumption.
12.) yes a presumption, translation assumption based on your FEELINGS and nothing factual
13.) a suggestion that you cant back up with any logic or facts that is wrong. In this case laws dont do it. Hurt feelings and ignorance does.
14.) well good thing thats not happening so theres no cause or effect.
your post fails and facts win again
lets go over the facts
your statement was wrong and the factual answer to your question is yes
hate crime is not a thought crime and there are many other crimes that assess motive and reasoning
talk about not being able to admit when a person is wrong. You are fighting against facts and getting destroyed yet keep trying. WHy? your statement failed and lost pages ago to facts (not me)
lets see if you can admit it and lets see what you learned
your question was "Can you be charged with a hate crime without a bias towards the
victims identity"
the factual answer is YES as proven by facts,law and the definition of the crime
do you still disagree with this fact? yes or no