Page 15 of 20 FirstFirst ... 51314151617 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 196

Thread: Is the Family Research Council shooting a hate crime?

  1. #141
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:37 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,290
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Is the Family Research Council shooting a hate crime?

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    If that is what you want to focus on, fine. I've made a lot of different points as to why I oppose hate crime legislation. Driving drunk is a completely different subject, and it has been PROVEN that driving drunk impairs your ability and reflexes. Whereas, you cannot predict what society's reaction will be to a specific crime.
    You can predict societies reaction to an event with simikar likelyhood as you can predict a drunk will get in an accident.

    What about domestic terrorism laws? Support or oppose?
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  2. #142
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    07-16-14 @ 01:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    47,571

    Re: Is the Family Research Council shooting a hate crime?

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    You can predict societies reaction to an event with simikar likelyhood as you can predict a drunk will get in an accident.

    What about domestic terrorism laws? Support or oppose?
    I'm not really sure how I feel about domestic terrorism laws. I don't know enough about them to decide one way or another.

    And again, I disagree. You cannot predict society's reaction with a similar likelihood. Not at all. Again, a drunk driver is being punished for his or her OWN actions that are deemed dangerous to public safety and not based on a "possible" reaction of society to a specific crime. Two completely different things.

  3. #143
    Professor cmakaioz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Oakland, CA
    Last Seen
    01-22-13 @ 02:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    1,582

    Re: Is the Family Research Council shooting a hate crime?

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    Your "answers" are your opinions on the matter.
    Wrong. Some of what I write is my opinion, and some of what I write is fact.

    Facts are empirical claims which can be verified or falsified in a manner which does not depend specifically upon the observer in question.

    Opinions are predictions, unverified (or unverifiable) statements, or expression of aesthetics/values.

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    Like I said, the outcome is the SAME. A family and community have been victimized. They don't get over it any easier than anyone else.
    Excellent work ignoring both the direct content AND the concepts in my posts.

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    To me, it is punishing thought
    With regards to FACTS, your OPINION doesn't matter. Neither does mine. This is a factual question, and the fact is that the basis of the legal doctrine behind HCE's is recognition of additional harm beyond the direct victim of a criminal act. You can disagree with and argue about whether or not this principle SHOULD or SHOULD NOT be implemented in sentencing, but it IS the principle in use.

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    You're just saying it in a different way, and I already addressed it above.
    No, you already FAILED to understand it several times.

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    It is making assumptions, nothing more. You cannot punish someone for what others MIGHT do.
    Actually, you can. We can argue about whether or not that's good or bad or in between, but OF COURSE it's possible to punish people for what others might do. Anticipation of how a larger community will respond to an action is a routine consideration in crafting and implementing laws...including (especially) criminal sentencing.

    You have a bad habit of loosely mixing together feelings and wishes with factual claims. That doesn't work. Whether you or I love it or hate it, it most certainly IS possible (and indeed, rather common) to base policies at least partially upon expectations of how an action will be responded to.

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    Your last sentence is absolutely ridiculous.
    My lest sentence in the reference paragraph was this:
    Quote Originally Posted by cmakaioz
    As some other posters have pointed out, the penalties for ACTUALLY killing someone are heavier than for ATTEMPTING to kill them, in part because obviously the harm is greater when you ACTUALLY kill someone.
    You find it ridiculous/incomprehensible that people notice the difference in harm between TRYING to kill someone vs. ACTUALLY killing them? REALLY?

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    Punish people for the CRIME.
    Recognition of the consequences/results of a crime...IS punishing for the crime.

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    We already have levels of crime, manslaughter, second-degree and capital murder. We don't need to muck up the system with more inane laws.
    You appear to have a general objection to differences in categories of crime based upon different levels of harm. This would explain your hysterical and repeated misrepresentation of HCE's. HCE's are based upon recognition of additional harm, and since you appear to be opposed to having different (and heavier) categories and sentences of crimes based upon such distinctions, I can see why you oppose HCE's.

    HOWEVER...this doesn't change the fact that HCE's are based upon the principle of providing more severe penalties for having committed crimes shown to cause more harm.

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    How so? If a man has a history of rape, and he rapes and kills a woman. According to your own logic, that is a hate crime.
    A man raping and killing a woman has only met one out of the three criteria of a hate crime:

    1) commission of a criminal act... CHECK

    2) evidentiary demonstration of specific animus against women? --not yet shown

    3) evidentiary demonstration by prosecutor that #1 was motivated specifically by #2? -- not yet shown.

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    He has targeted a specific minority, has a past history of showing his hate towards this group (whether or not it is based upon sexual feelings is irrelevant to the fact that he is targeting a minority).
    You really, REALLY don't understand. HCE's are NOT based upon the victim happening to be part of a protected class. They are based upon demonstration (through evidence) by the prosecutor that the perpetrator specifically sought to target that victim on that basis.

    In English: A mugger could rob Indian immigrants, and only Indian immigrants, and this -- on its own -- would NOT be sufficient to carry an HCE.

    The prosecutor must demonstrate specific animus ON THE PART OF THE OFFENDER, and further demonstrate that this animus was the specific motivation for the specific criminal act. The identity of the victim is only relevant insofar as it feeds into the demonstrated animus of the offender. ANYONE can be the victim of a hate crime, because HCE's are based upon demonstrated animus on the part of the offender, NOT whether or not the victim is ACTUALLY what the offender perceives them to be. For example, in (Colorado, I think) a couple years back, there was an assault against a Sikh man by a perpetrator who wanted to terrorize Arabs. The relevant basis (of the HCE which was carried against the offender) was that the OFFENDER was trying to target Arabs, and (falsely) believed the Sikh man to be an Arab.

    Get it yet? It's about the animus of the offender, not the real or imagined identity of the victim.

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    No, children are considered individuals and human-beings of their own right, not an extension of their parents. Children do not have political rights because they are generally incapable of such things.
    I was describing the legal and political reality, not advocating for or against that situation. You yourself acknowledge that children do not have political rights, which corroborates my argument that the reason we don't have AGE as a protected class is because children -- as a political block -- have no direct power of their own; they must have their interests fought for through allies.

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    Murders and killings affect every community that they occur in; it doesn't matter what the race, gender or age of the victim was.
    Strawman. No one here has claimed that murders and killings ONLY affect certain people. Rather, I pointed out the fact that TARGETED crimes do NOT affect all people equally. Do you comprehend the difference between those statements?

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    Why? Why not just prosecute them to the full extent of the law without mucking up the system with all of this? I will agree that if someone has a police record of targeting a specific minority group and then kills a group of them, you MAY be able to prosecute for a hate crime,
    You still don't get it. Demonstrating specific animus and a criminal act is not sufficient. For an HCE to be carried, the prosecutor must show -- through evidence, not supposition -- that the crime in question was motivated by that animus. "Officer Joe killed a black guy" and "Officer Joe always said he hated black guys" is NOT enough. The burden of proof for an HCE in such a case would be for the prosecutor to demonstrate that Officer Joe Killed That Specific Black Guy BECAUSE Joe Hated Black Guys.

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    but to me, that is still making assumptions about what somebody was thinking about at the time of the murder, and that could NOT be proven.
    You are wrong. FACTUALLY wrong. HCE's are not based upon assumption, but upon EVIDENCE. HCEs are rarely pursued precisely because the evidentiary burden is so difficult.

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    You can assume that because of his history, but that is all. It is still only an assumption.
    I (and you) can assume things until we die, but those assumptions don't carry any weight in a courtroom. No, in a courtroom, a prosecutor must demonstrate through EVIDENCE, NOT SUPPOSITION that a crime was specifically motivated by animus against a protected class, AND must link that animus to the specific crime in question.
    You could have a defendant who actively published homophobic bigotry on websites and radio and in print for his entire adult life...but until and unless the prosecutor successfully shows through evidence that this animus was specifically linked to an already-recognized (convicted) criminal act, that history doesn't mean anything for the purpose of sentencing.

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    And this is what YOU say. You are doing the same thing on the opposite end of the spectrum
    WRONG. YOU are mistaking matters of fact for matters of opinion. The legal doctrine upon which HCE's are based is NOT a matter of opinion. It has a clear and documented history, rose out of a specific chain of historical events and political movements, and this basis is reflected in the strategies of legal counsel in actual court cases. Once again: we can argue all we like about whether or not this SHOULD be the basis of sentencing enhancements, but as things stand, right now, it is a FACT that this IS the basis of HCE's.

    Here's a parallel example:

    The speed limit on my local highway is 60 MPH. (FACT)
    I think it should be higher (OPINION)
    My brother thinks it should be lower (OPINION)

    BUT...no matter what I or my brother feels about it, the speed limit is 60 MPH (FACT)

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    , but you have the advantage that there is ALREADY existing hate crime legislation, which makes it EASY for you to say I'm incorrect.
    It's not easy or hard, it simply IS. There IS hate crime legislation, and it is based upon a legal doctrine of recognizing additional harm with more severe penalty. That's the way it is NO MATTER HOW EITHER OF US MAY RESPOND TO IT.

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    I disagree.
    Facts are not subject to disagreement...one either accepts them or denies them...but they don't change at all based upon our feelings.

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    I think this set of laws is incorrect, unless there extreme and extenuating circumstances. That means that convictions for hate crimes are pretty low, and they are very low. Why is that? Because you cannot prove what someone is thinking at the time they committed their crime.
    Wrong. The rate of successful carriage of hate crime ENHANCEMENTS (HCE's are not criminal charges on their own...they are add-on's to existing convictions) is low precisely because HCE's require a substantial evidentiary burden. It is EASY to defeat an HCE because the perpetrator practically has to directly admit to it in order to carry the HCE. That's why they are typically only carried against long-term / "career" bigots (folks who openly admit their animus because they don't see anything wrong with it).

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    Our laws are NOT supposed to look into other things this particular criminal has done in his past, because he is on trial for the current crime. Don't you see how this is a slippery slope?
    COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT TO THE FACT. Any and all notions about what "our" laws SHOULD or SHOULD NOT do have absolutely no bearing on the fact that HCE's are based upon recognition of additional harm. What laws SHOULD and SHOULDN'T be doing is an entirely separate discussion.

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    What if somebody assaulted a minority in the past, but it had nothing to do with racial motivations. Then, years later, this same person gets into a bar room brawl with a person who just happens to be of the same minority group, is the evidence to convict someone of a "hate" crime?
    NO. For the upteenth time: HCE's are difficult to pursue in a conviction precisely because the prosecutor must show with EVIDENCE, NOT SUPPOSITION that the crime was committed SPECIFICALLY based upon animus against a protected class:

    animus alone? not enough
    commission of a crime? not enough
    commission of a crime by someone who has previously been shown to bear a specific animus? STILL NOT ENOUGH

    Commision of a crime, by someone shown to bear a specific animus against a protected class, AND who is ALSO shown to have committed the crime BASED UPON that animus?

    THEN, AND ONLY THEN does the HCE have a fighting chance of being carried to the sentence.
    I've moved on to a better forum (scienceforums.net). Facts matter, and I don't have the time or energy for putting up with the pretense that they don't. PM me if you'd like me to get in touch with you when I'm done developing my own forum system, likely towards the end of 2013.

  4. #144
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    07-16-14 @ 01:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    47,571

    Re: Is the Family Research Council shooting a hate crime?

    OMG! That is WAY too long and redundant. I'm going to answer this in a nutshell because you are obviously getting carried away here with all of the quoting and HUGE posts.

    The simple FACT of the matter is that you and others cannot read minds. THAT is the ONLY FACT here. All of this "figuring out why" is nothing but PURE speculation. It is certainly not justice. You cannot legislate feelings and thoughts. PERIOD. You cannot, unless you can read minds, PROVE why somebody committed a crime. Even if they confess that they did the crime because they "hate" the race involved, it does not matter. People are known to say ALL kinds of things. It is not PROOF. That is why detectives seek out HARD evidence when they want to prosecute a criminal. Even eyewitness accounts are considered weak as evidence, so how on earth can you say with certainty that our lawmakers, judges, juries, etc., can KNOW without a REASONABLE DOUBT what someone is thinking during the commission of a crime or how society or a certain community will react to this crime. You can't, and you know that. You just like this legislation, and you don't care if it isn't fair.

  5. #145
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    07-16-14 @ 01:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    47,571

    Re: Is the Family Research Council shooting a hate crime?

    Obviously, some people think that certain races of people and homosexuals who are crime victims should have extraneous benefits in the justice system that the rest of us don't have. Lady Justice is supposed to be BLIND and doesn't make assumptions.

    Since the 15th century, Lady Justice has often been depicted wearing a blindfold. The blindfold represents objectivity, in that justice is or should be meted out objectively, without fear or favour, regardless of identity, money, power, or weakness; blind justice and impartiality. The earliest Roman coins depicted Justitia with the sword in one hand and the scale in the other, but with her eyes uncovered.[3] Justitia was only commonly represented as "blind" since about the end of the 15th century. The first known representation of blind Justice is Hans Gieng's 1543 statue on the Gerechtigkeitsbrunnen (Fountain of Justice) in Berne.[4]

  6. #146
    Sage
    Phys251's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:53 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    12,713

    Re: Is the Family Research Council shooting a hate crime?

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    That might be the legal definition, but it is the justice system overstepping boundaries IMO. People should be punished accordingly for the crime committed, not assumptions on why.

    Explain why women are not allowed to claim "hate crime" when they are raped please.
    Actually, under the definition I gave, I am not against classifying rape as a hate crime.
    "A man you can bait with a tweet is not a man we can trust with nuclear weapons." --Hillary Rodham Clinton
    "Innocent until proven guilty is for criminal convictions, not elections." --Mitt Romney

  7. #147
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    07-16-14 @ 01:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    47,571

    Re: Is the Family Research Council shooting a hate crime?

    Perhaps you'll listen to someone with a liberal perspective. From the New York Times. Please read.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/02/op...d-trayvon.html

    Tyler and Trayvon, Continued... - NYTimes.com

  8. #148
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:19 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,081

    Re: Is the Family Research Council shooting a hate crime?

    No one has any way of knowing, because no one here can read anothers' heart and mind.

    That is why "hate crime" is crap. It's an attempt to enforce thought crime.

    The guy tried to kill people, I'd buy domestic terrorism, as it certainly seems to fall within that broad category, but I'm open to the large possibility that he is instead just insane.

  9. #149
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    07-16-14 @ 01:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    47,571

  10. #150
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    07-16-14 @ 01:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    47,571

    Re: Is the Family Research Council shooting a hate crime?

    This one's interesting too. I don't think it's from a liberal perspective, still an interesting read.

    Why We Should Hate

Page 15 of 20 FirstFirst ... 51314151617 ... 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
  •