• 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

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 25, 2010
Messages
80,422
Reaction score
29,075
Location
Pittsburgh
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Utah man gets maximum sentence in hate crime case - The Washington Post

[h=1]Utah man gets maximum sentence in hate crime case[/h]
SALT LAKE CITY — A federal judge on Monday gave a Utah man the maximum sentence of a year in prison for writing a letter threatening to kill white members of an interracial family if they didn’t make a black teenage relative move away.

Prosecutor Carlos Esqueda said Keller was upset because the then-13-year-old boy was walking down the street with a white girl in Hurricane, a southwestern Utah city of about 14,000 people. Esqueda said the case was part of a pattern of racist behavior from Keller, and argued that Keller’s age didn’t excuse his behavior.

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
 
It's a pretty cut and dry case, not sure what you expect anyone to say about it.

The perp is scum. Anything else?
 
It's a pretty cut and dry case, not sure what you expect anyone to say about it.

The perp is scum. Anything else?

oh im MORE than fine with the charge and the sentence, penalties and fine

just "almost" shocked that scum like this exist . . . . .

not racist everybody knows they exist but writing a letter actually threatening murder etc etc from a seemingly regular person/neighbor

although i have told a member or two here that definitely bat**** insane that if i knew them in real life i would definitely tell all the neighbors and every org i could about them to make sure they were watched closely and people stayed away from them lol

and no, im good with "Scum"
 
Is it really that shocking? You can google white supremacist groups in the USA. They're alive and well. The KKK is old school now but many others have taken their place, some of them are pretty sophisticated too.

In the early 2000's my former neighbor's adopted daughter had a man in his 40's push her to the ground and told her to get out of town because her race didn't belong there. She was 12 at the time, still just a kid.

This **** happens all the time in Amerikkka. Some people's brains are totally warped.
 
Is it really that shocking? You can google white supremacist groups in the USA. They're alive and well. The KKK is old school now but many others have taken their place, some of them are pretty sophisticated too.

In the early 2000's my former neighbor's adopted daughter had a man in his 40's push her to the ground and told her to get out of town because her race didn't belong there. She was 12 at the time, still just a kid.

This **** happens all the time in Amerikkka. Some people's brains are totally warped.

thats way i said "almost" shocking
and its not the racist part that is shocking, there bigots right on this board and racism is still wide spread

it was the whole writing a letter and mailing it to your neighbor telling them you are going to murder them thing that just surprised me

i know racism comes from ignorance and stupidity but jeez lol

but yes people are warped
 
Time for one of Hatuey's famous debate breakdowns:

Liberals: This just highlights how everyone in Utah is racist.
Conservatives: This isn't real racism because 300 years ago, my indentured servant (ol timey Walmart employees) relatives I don't know were abused and that was racist.
Libertarians: You're oppressing me by not letting me threaten people!
Independents (C): Liberals are terrible! I'm so Independent! White guilt! Look at this link which distracts you from the issue! 21st Century! You're a bigot for disliking racists! How come Obama doesn't talk about Islam?
Independents (L): I refuse to make a relevant statement either addressing this issue or dismissing the OP. I just want to feel important.
Other: I think what is important here is that the sociological concepts and alignments of the moon are not in complete synchronicity with the hot pockets I have in the microwave.
Posters with identity issues (1): What about the time in 1984 when Nelson Mandela killed JFK?
Posters with identity issues (2): These white misogynists are just trying to oppress the black man for all of the late term abortions they support and rape and we progressives.

You can all go home now people. The debate is done.
 
Last edited:
Time for one of Hatuey's famous debate breakdowns:

Liberals: This just highlights how everyone in Utah is racist.
Conservatives: This isn't real racism because 300 years ago, my indentured servant (ol timey Walmart employees) relatives I don't know were abused and that was racist.
Libertarians: You're oppressing me by not letting me threaten people!
Independents (C): Liberals are terrible! I'm so Independent! White guilt! Look at this link which distracts you from the issue! 21st Century! You're a bigot for disliking racists! How come Obama doesn't talk about Islam?
Independents (L): I refuse to make a relevant statement either addressing this issue or dismissing it. I just want to feel important.
Other: I think what is important here is that the sociological concepts and alignments of the moon are not in complete synchronicity with the hot pockets I have in the microwave.
Posters with identity issues (1): What about the time in 1984 when Nelson Mandela killed JFK?
Posters with identity issues (2): These white misogynists are just trying to oppress the black man for all of the late term abortions they support and rape and we progressives.


well, proof that I'm "other"


Also, your sig is disturbing as hell. only the "trolls"?
wow.
 
in before "why are hate crime laws legal"
////

yeah i dont understand why hate crime laws are confusing to people. dont get me wrong i want ALL laws to be used and enforced properly with proper evidence but other than that theres nothing to understand.

we already have many laws that follow suit like assault and aggravated assault etc.
 
Que?



The sig is a little more complex than I give it credit for.



Um

1) my opinion on the topic fits none of the groupings (lib-con-etc) your gave

2) well if I read it wrong, my apologies. what is a word worse than "despicable" (aka the word that would then apply to stormfront posters {non troll variety})
 
Um

1) my opinion on the topic fits none of the groupings (lib-con-etc) your gave

2) well if I read it wrong, my apologies. what is a word worse than "despicable" (aka the word that would then apply to stormfront posters {non troll variety})

It's not that you read it wrong, it's that there's more to it than the words you see on the screen.
 

Do you think we should the murderers of Zemir Belgic with hate crime laws?
 
Do you think we should the murderers of Zemir Belgic with hate crime laws?

not familiar with that murder/case but the answer is pretty simple

it doesnt matter what i "think" it matters what evidence supports

in the OP the evidence is very clear, fact based and obvious . . .

is there factual evidence of a hate crime in the case you are referring?
 
not familiar with that murder/case but the answer is pretty simple

it doesnt matter what i "think" it matters what evidence supports

in the OP the evidence is very clear, fact based and obvious . . .

is there factual evidence of a hate crime in the case you are referring?

There's witnesses who reported the group yelled kill white people before killing him in St. Louis while the ferguson protests were happening. The police say that that is not evidence of a racially based hate crime I'm just curious what you think.
 
There's witnesses who reported the group yelled kill white people before killing him in St. Louis while the ferguson protests were happening. The police say that that is not evidence of a racially based hate crime I'm just curious what you think.

well id have to partially agree
"witnesses" is circumstantial currently
the questions that would come up are what witnesses, where were they, who are they?


if you want to know what I "think" even though thats meaningless ill tell you

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.

also note that part may never make it to trail if its not sound enough

and also again this is just like anything else there needs to be solid evidence just like with murder 1 and murder 2 and murder 3/involuntary homicide etc. it has to go by evidence.

so what do you "think" about what i "think" lol
 
Last edited:
Libertarians: You're oppressing me by not letting me threaten people!

TRqJ53H.png
 
well id have to partially agree
"witnesses" is circumstantial currently
the questions that would come up are what witnesses, where were they, who are they?


if you want to know what I "think" even though thats meaningless ill tell you

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.

also note that part may never make it to trail if its not sound enough

and also again this is just like anything else there needs to be solid evidence just like with murder 1 and murder 2 and murder 3/involuntary homicide etc. it has to go by evidence.

so what to you "think" about what i "think" lol

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. Also, it's pretty obvious they targeted him because he is white.

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. 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. Just as the people killing zemir begic should be charged with murder but not hate crime. 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. This shows that charging people based on thought will only cause more division.
 
Last edited:
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:
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
 
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?
 
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 because 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.
 
1.) Plain and simple communist attacks nazi because 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 :shrug:
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?
 
Back
Top Bottom