• 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

Libertie76 said:
Not by the definiton of the law written in the law (1) Offenses involving actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin. - Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person
Click to expand...

again your issue with english and the definition of the law according to the US government is not my fault. The US legal definition was already provided and nothing you post can trump it :shrug:

your inaccurate or partial example doesnt even mention property which is in fact part of the definitions.

once again you are wrong

desperately searing the net to try and make yourself right wont work since we are talking US rights, laws and crimes (US Case) and that definition form the government has already been provided. Its dishonest and nobody educated will fall for it.

SImple show integrity and admit the FACTUAL answer to your question is yes and you saying other wise was wrong. this wont change.
 
Libertie76 said:
Good job no integrity by the intentional refusal to respond to this claim "then the action of thinking can be a hate crime and I don't think that that is vary fair"
Click to expand...


ignoring your feelings and opinions and accepting facts over them is PURE integrity.
guess thats another word you don't quite understand.
 
law, facts and defintion of the crime has destroyed your claims time and time again. SO im dont kicking your post while they are down, we are going to keep it simple.

this is your question: "Can you be charged with a hate crime without a bias towards the victims identity"
the factual answer is : "Yes"

do you agree yes or no?

if yes great you learned

if no, provide the facts you have the prove it
 
AGENT J said:
again your issue with english and the definition of the law according to the US government is not my fault. The US legal definition was already provided and nothing you post can trump it :shrug:

your inaccurate or partial example doesnt even mention property which is in fact part of the definitions.

once again you are wrong

desperately searing the net to try and make yourself right wont work since we are talking US rights, laws and crimes (US Case) and that definition form the government has already been provided. Its dishonest and nobody educated will fall for it.

SImple show integrity and admit the FACTUAL answer to your question is yes and you saying other wise was wrong. this wont change.
Click to expand...

Wow the law itself actually has a division referring to your hypothetical case http://www.legislationline.org/documents/action/popup/id/16294

"(c) Whoever intentionally defaces, damages, or destroys any religious real property because of the race, color, or ethnic characteristics of any individual associated with that religious property, or attempts to do so, shall be punished as provided in subsection (d)."
 
AGENT J said:
law, facts and defintion of the crime has destroyed your claims time and time again. SO im dont kicking your post while they are down, we are going to keep it simple.

this is your question: "Can you be charged with a hate crime without a bias towards the victims identity"
the factual answer is : "Yes"

do you agree yes or no?

if yes great you learned

if no, provide the facts you have the prove it
Click to expand...

facts by the definition of the law itself that you say isn't good enough! ok done already proven your just willingly ignoring them
 
AGENT J said:
ignoring your feelings and opinions and accepting facts over them is PURE integrity.
guess thats another word you don't quite understand.
Click to expand...

It's not my feeling you said a hate crime needs an action to be a hate crime, well guess what thinking is an action does that make it a hate crime

Were you wrong when you said a hate crime needs an action to be a hate crime?
 
AGENT J said:
law, facts and defintion of the crime has destroyed your claims time and time again. SO im dont kicking your post while they are down, we are going to keep it simple.

this is your question: "Can you be charged with a hate crime without a bias towards the victims identity"
the factual answer is : "Yes"

do you agree yes or no?

if yes great you learned

if no, provide the facts you have the prove it
Click to expand...

Wow vandalizing mark zuckerberg a hypothetical church is a hate crime because of the perceived identity of mark zuckerberg (2) Offenses involving actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. -

http://www.legislationline.org/documents/action/popup/id/4161
 
Libertie76 said:
facts by the definition of the law itself that you say isn't good enough! ok done already proven your just willingly ignoring them
Click to expand...

law, facts and defintion of the crime has destroyed your claims time and time again. SO im dont kicking your post while they are down, we are going to keep it simple.

this is your question: "Can you be charged with a hate crime without a bias towards the victims identity"
the factual answer is : "Yes"

do you agree yes or no?

if yes great you learned

if no, provide the facts you have the prove it
 
Libertie76 said:
Wow vandalizing mark zuckerberg a hypothetical church is a hate crime because of the perceived identity of mark zuckerberg (2) Offenses involving actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. -

http://www.legislationline.org/documents/action/popup/id/4161
Click to expand...

still waiting for FACTS, you dont get to CHANGE the story LOL you get that right. I gave you a factual example of how the answer is yes, you dont get to CHANGE the example.

you were already told WHY the guy did it and he had no perceived view of the OWNER/VICTIM :lamo

your post complete fails and gets destroyed and facts win again.

next post, facts that support you please.
 
AGENT J said:
law, facts and defintion of the crime has destroyed your claims time and time again. SO im dont kicking your post while they are down, we are going to keep it simple.

this is your question: "Can you be charged with a hate crime without a bias towards the victims identity"
the factual answer is : "Yes"

do you agree yes or no?

if yes great you learned

if no, provide the facts you have the prove it
Click to expand...

Nope don't agree you still haven't shown me a solid piece of evidence to support a rational thought otherwise, I have shown you the law itself and it's criteria inside the law. Substantial evidence to support my claim.

I can't help it that you are ignoring every thing I use as a fact to support my claim
 
Libertie76 said:
Nope don't agree you still haven't shown me a solid piece of evidence to support a rational thought otherwise, I have shown you the law itself and it's criteria inside the law. Substantial evidence to support my claim.

I can't help it that you are ignoring every thing I use as a fact to support my claim
Click to expand...

your answer is no, great, that wrong but great

so now your job is to provide facts that trump US law, facts and crime definitions . . thanks
 
AGENT J said:
still waiting for FACTS, you dont get to CHANGE the story LOL you get that right. I gave you a factual example of how the answer is yes, you dont get to CHANGE the example.

you were already told WHY the guy did it and he had no perceived view of the OWNER/VICTIM :lamo

your post complete fails and gets destroyed and facts win again.

next post, facts that support you please.
Click to expand...

The definitions I have posed show how it's a hate crime because it's based on mark zuckerbergs perceived identity with the religion, in other words the hate crime is the motivation base don the bias of the victims identity. Your stipulation is refuted because hey added perceived into the law
 
AGENT J said:
your answer is no, great, that wrong but great

so now your job is to provide facts that trump US law, facts and crime definitions . . thanks
Click to expand...

It's not trumping us law is saying this is the purpose of the law, and when I quote you articles directly from the law itself you ignore them
 
AGENT J said:
your answer is no, great, that wrong but great

so now your job is to provide facts that trump US law, facts and crime definitions . . thanks
Click to expand...

Are you willing to retract this statement "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"
 
Libertie76 said:
It's not trumping us law is saying this is the purpose of the law, and when I quote you articles directly from the law itself you ignore them
Click to expand...

100% correct!!! good job

this is why your opinions and interpretations of anything else or the purpose doesn't change anything
the answer to your question is still 100% without any doubts factually YES

you havent post ONE not ONE single fact that changes anything . . theres nothign you have posted that changes the answer that is already proven by the definition of the lw.
its not "my" opinion, its not anybody perception, it is the factual wording and definition of the law. Each and everytime it has destroyed ever weak attempt you have made to change it . . but . . . facts don't change

uness the defintion is changed by the government or legal process your claim will continue to be wrong

now, if you will . . .present ONE fact (not opinions) that supports you and change the answer to your question . . .ONE
 
AGENT J said:
100% correct!!! good job

this is why your opinions and interpretations of anything else or the purpose doesn't change anything
the answer to your question is still 100% without any doubts factually YES

you havent post ONE not ONE single fact that changes anything . . theres nothign you have posted that changes the answer that is already proven by the definition of the lw.
its not "my" opinion, its not anybody perception, it is the factual wording and definition of the law. Each and everytime it has destroyed ever weak attempt you have made to change it . . but . . . facts don't change

uness the defintion is changed by the government or legal process your claim will continue to be wrong

now, if you will . . .present ONE fact (not opinions) that supports you and change the answer to your question . . .ONE
Click to expand...

How is it factually wrong please enlighten me

Already have many times can't help it that you blatantly ignore it
 
Libertie76 said:
Are you willing to retract this statement "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"
Click to expand...
why??????
of course not because that statement as written in context is 100% true lol

if TIM feels motivated to punch Jim solely because he is black BUT never does it, no crime takes place. TIM committed no crime. this is a fact.

i challenge you to show otherwise and tell me the crime if you disagree, what will TIM be charged with, like your other posts your attempt will fail and be destroyed because facts will win.

also, thank you again for proving you have no understanding of this law.
 
Libertie76 said:
How is it factually wrong please enlighten me

Already have many times can't help it that you blatantly ignore it
Click to expand...

translation: you have no facts that support you, please let me know when you do . . .
thank you
 
AGENT J said:
why??????
of course not because that statement as written in context is 100% true lol

if TIM feels motivated to punch Jim solely because he is black BUT never does it, no crime takes place. TIM committed no crime. this is a fact.

i challenge you to show otherwise and tell me the crime if you disagree, what will TIM be charged with, like your other posts your attempt will fail and be destroyed because facts will win.

also, thank you again for proving you have no understanding of this law.
Click to expand...

This is your actual quote 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/

So you reworded instead of retracting it. Ok that's integrity if I ever knew it

Doesn't it suck when you take something out of context, flip it, try to make someone look stupid with it but then ultimately have it bite you in the butt?
 
Libertie76 said:
1.)The definitions I have posed show how it's a hate crime because it's based on mark zuckerbergs perceived identity with the religion, in other words the hate crime is the motivation base don the bias of the victims identity.
2.) Your stipulation is refuted because hey added perceived into the law
Click to expand...

1.) 100% false you havent posted ANYTHING that does that
unless you CHANGE the example which YOU cant do, you cant change my example
2.) the only way this would work is if the guy said "oh i burned down the church because i thought that owner was a christian and i want to harm him." the guy admitted he wanted to destroy the church cause of christianity . . this was established PAGES ago lol nice try

so once again your post compete fails and facts remain victorious
 
AGENT J said:
translation: you have no facts that support you, please let me know when you do . . .
thank you
Click to expand...

I already posted me here you go again (1) Offenses involving actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national

(2) Offenses involving actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. -

(c) Whoever intentionally defaces, damages, or destroys any religious real property because of the race, color, or ethnic characteristics of any individual associated with that religious property, or attempts to do so, shall be punished as provided in subsection (d).

My statement, hate crime is the motivation based on he bias of the victims identity. Now follow closely because it's not in crayon

An offense on involving a persons race, religion etc etc is the motivation based on the bias of the victims identity, whether it's real identity or perceived

Offenses involving actual or perceived religion, origin etc etc is a motivation based on the victims identity

The destruction of religious property based on the characteristics of a individual associated with the property is an offense involving actual or perceived religion. In other words, it is the motivation if bias towards the victims identity. Proving your counter argument completely wrong

These are stipulations in the actual law itself so cut and dry is he definition of the law
 
Libertie76 said:
1.)This is your actual quote 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/
1.)So you reworded instead of retracting it. Ok that's integrity if I ever knew it
2.)Doesn't it suck when you take something out of context, flip it, try to make someone look stupid with it but then ultimately have it bite you in the butt?
Click to expand...



1.) again ENGLISH, me adding names to it doesnt change anything especially context lol
thank you for again proving you dont understand it or english
2.) i wouldnt know since your just did that to yourself, tell me how does it feel?

so maybe in your next post you can tell me what crime you would be charged with for being motivated but not doing it
 
Libertie76 said:
I already posted me here you go again (1) Offenses involving actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national

(2) Offenses involving actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. -

(c) Whoever intentionally defaces, damages, or destroys any religious real property because of the race, color, or ethnic characteristics of any individual associated with that religious property, or attempts to do so, shall be punished as provided in subsection (d).

My statement, hate crime is the motivation based on he bias of the victims identity. Now follow closely because it's not in crayon

An offense on involving a persons race, religion etc etc is the motivation based on the bias of the victims identity, whether it's real identity or perceived

Offenses involving actual or perceived religion, origin etc etc is a motivation based on the victims identity

The destruction of religious property based on the characteristics of a individual associated with the property is an offense involving actual or perceived religion. In other words, it is the motivation if bias towards the victims identity. Proving your counter argument completely wrong

These are stipulations in the actual law itself so cut and dry is he definition of the law
Click to expand...


that changes nothing unless the person doing the crime PERCEIVED something or it could be proven that he did
in the example this factually did NOT happen. Your post fails again.

maybe your next post wont fail and facts wont beat it again.

I can do this all day its so much fun when people post ies and deny facts. Pointing out when people do this is my second favorite thing to do here.

So now im waiting for those FACTS that support your claim.
 
AGENT J said:
1.) again ENGLISH, me adding names to it doesnt change anything especially context lol
thank you for again proving you dont understand it or english
2.) i wouldnt know since your just did that to yourself, tell me how does it feel?

so maybe in your next post you can tell me what crime you would be charged with for being motivated but not doing it
Click to expand...

Here's he original quote "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/"

Here's the new quote
if TIM feels motivated to punch Jim solely because he is black BUT never does it, no crime takes place. TIM committed no crime. this is a fact.

Tell me why aren't here any bolder words in the second quote
 
AGENT J said:
1.) yes he was charged for his actions thats a fact
2.) im not i simply understand the facts
3.) false there is no crime based on thought
Click to expand...

So making **** up is your strategy?

if assault you and get charge with assault, that is action, if its found out later that i wanted to kill you i know also get charged with attempted murder

its based on MOTIVE and REASONING of the CRIME/ACTION and in this case its not a hate crime as long as my motive for wanting to kill you or assault you doesnt fit

and in the case of hate crime its also based on MOTIVE and reasoning of my ACTION, not the thought alone

its action, not thought, thought is legal
Click to expand...

The difference between assault and attempted murder is what crime you intend to commit, or to put it another way, the action you where trying to do. Hate crimes are crimes of motivation, why you committed a crime. No amount of lame formatting is going to change that basic fact.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom