Page 2 of 20 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 196

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

  1. #11
    Professor
    zstep18's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Somewhere
    Last Seen
    02-24-14 @ 02:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,770

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ChuckBerry View Post
    Just so. Adding "hate" in front of "crime" is a pointless emotionalization of the act, much like adding "assault" before "rifle".
    Except that a hate crime is specifically directed at someone because of their race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.

  2. #12
    Guru Bobcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    The BIG easy
    Last Seen
    02-07-13 @ 09:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,646

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

    the whole hate crime thing is foolish, to try to say that a crime is worse depending on what the criminal was thinking at the time is just stupid.

    to say its worse if I kill you because I dont like your race than if I kill you to steal your money, it defies logic.

    The FRC shooting was domestic terrorism, just like the FT Hood shooting was domestic terrorism. but because one was aimed at christians and one was committed by a muslim, neither will get that designation.

    PC at its very worst.
    "Just get the hell out of my way" John Galt to the government in Atlas Shrugged.

  3. #13
    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?

    Based upon what little superficial information I've seen thus far, this looks like terrorism:

    violence or credible threat of violence? check

    committed in an attempt to influence policy (in this case, of an advocacy group)? check

    - - -

    Now, as for hate crime enhancement.

    For the bazillionth time (seems I have to explain this in any and every thread in which someone starts talking about hate crimes):

    Hate crime enhancements are NOT -- as so popularly and frequently misrepresented -- merely crimes motivated by hate.

    Hate crime enhancements are, for starters, sentencing enhancements tacked on to some act which has already been found to be criminal...AND for which a prosecutor has successfully carried an additional evidentiary burden of demonstrating to have been motivated by specific animus on the part of the offender towards a target based upon their perceived "race", sex, religion, or sexual orientation.

    Based upon the information so far, the shooter was motivated by clear and explicit opposition to the policy positions of the FRC. As the motivation is based upon the real or perceived policy positions of the FRC, this would not be specific animus towards the actual or perceived religion of the employees/directors of the FRC.

    This would be garden variety terrorism.

    This means the shooter may be facing far more severe charges, and a profoundly curtailed set of defendant's rights as well, than if he were charged with attempted murder. After all, if he is charged with certain forms of terrorism, he gets a completely different legal process (thanks to that series of "antiterrorism" laws passed over the past few years where just being *charged* -- not convicted -- of terrorism puts you on a different track).
    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. #14
    Professor
    zstep18's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Somewhere
    Last Seen
    02-24-14 @ 02:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,770

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Bobcat View Post
    to say its worse if I kill you because I dont like your race than if I kill you to steal your money, it defies logic.
    Do you belief there should be a distinction between premeditated murder and regular murder? Same thing.

  5. #15
    Guru Bobcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    The BIG easy
    Last Seen
    02-07-13 @ 09:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,646

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

    Quote Originally Posted by cmakaioz View Post
    Based upon what little superficial information I've seen thus far, this looks like terrorism:

    violence or credible threat of violence? check

    committed in an attempt to influence policy (in this case, of an advocacy group)? check

    - - -

    Now, as for hate crime enhancement.

    For the bazillionth time (seems I have to explain this in any and every thread in which someone starts talking about hate crimes):

    Hate crime enhancements are NOT -- as so popularly and frequently misrepresented -- merely crimes motivated by hate.

    Hate crime enhancements are, for starters, sentencing enhancements tacked on to some act which has already been found to be criminal...AND for which a prosecutor has successfully carried an additional evidentiary burden of demonstrating to have been motivated by specific animus on the part of the offender towards a target based upon their perceived "race", sex, religion, or sexual orientation.

    Based upon the information so far, the shooter was motivated by clear and explicit opposition to the policy positions of the FRC. As the motivation is based upon the real or perceived policy positions of the FRC, this would not be specific animus towards the actual or perceived religion of the employees/directors of the FRC.

    This would be garden variety terrorism.

    This means the shooter may be facing far more severe charges, and a profoundly curtailed set of defendant's rights as well, than if he were charged with attempted murder. After all, if he is charged with certain forms of terrorism, he gets a completely different legal process (thanks to that series of "antiterrorism" laws passed over the past few years where just being *charged* -- not convicted -- of terrorism puts you on a different track).
    I get that, and I agree with you. But to dole out more stringent punishment because of what the criminal was THINKING when he committed the crime is nothing but government thought control. ala 1984 by Orwell.
    "Just get the hell out of my way" John Galt to the government in Atlas Shrugged.

  6. #16
    Guru Bobcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    The BIG easy
    Last Seen
    02-07-13 @ 09:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,646

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

    Quote Originally Posted by zstep18 View Post
    Do you belief there should be a distinction between premeditated murder and regular murder? Same thing.
    first tell me what "regular murder" is, then I will answer your question
    "Just get the hell out of my way" John Galt to the government in Atlas Shrugged.

  7. #17
    Professor
    zstep18's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Somewhere
    Last Seen
    02-24-14 @ 02:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,770

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Bobcat View Post
    first tell me what "regular murder" is, then I will answer your question
    Someone talks crap about someone, they pull out a gun and shoot them vs. someone carries a premeditated plan to murder.

  8. #18
    Professor
    zstep18's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Somewhere
    Last Seen
    02-24-14 @ 02:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,770

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Bobcat View Post
    I get that, and I agree with you. But to dole out more stringent punishment because of what the criminal was THINKING when he committed the crime is nothing but government thought control. ala 1984 by Orwell.
    If there should be no more of a stringent punishment because of what the criminal was thinking, then there should be no distinction between murder committed "in the moment" and premeditated murder.

  9. #19
    Phonetic Mnemonic
    radcen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Look to your right... I'm that guy.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:00 AM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    33,397

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

    Ethically: "Hate crime"/"Terrorism"... po-tay-to/po-tah-to. It just depends on which side of the political aisle you're on. It's still motivated by essentially the same mindset.

    Legally: Our current system disagrees with me, but I personally find no valid reason for special emotional designations. The motivation whether it was "hate" motivated, or "just business" and a simple crime for money makes zero real difference. Crime is crime, dead is dead, hurt is hurt, victims are victims.
    If you claim sexual harassment to be wrong, yet you defend anyone on your side for any reason,
    then you are a hypocrite and everything you say on the matter is just babble.

  10. #20
    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 Bobcat View Post
    I get that, and I agree with you. But to dole out more stringent punishment because of what the criminal was THINKING when he committed the crime is nothing but government thought control. ala 1984 by Orwell.
    ...and here's one of the OTHER things I seem to have to explain EVERY TIME someone mentions hate crime enhancements.

    HCE's do NOT, and do not attempt to, punish thought.

    HCE's are based upon the recognition of additional harm to society which comes from leniency or lack of vigilance against animus crimes, due to the group-specific terror they inspire in a targeted population.

    For example, consider cross-burning:

    Lighting a cross on someone else's yard would -- if that symbol carried no recognizable political implications -- be cited as a violation based upon laws against trespassing, property damage, vandalism, etc.

    However, the point of a cross-burning is to terrorize. Aside from burning someone's lawn and creating some messy soot and ash, the burning of something in someone's yard wouldn't really cause any lasting damage to the family living there or to any community.

    But that's not what a cross burning is about. A cross-burning is not mere vandalism; it is terrorism. It is a public threat which sends the message: You Are Not Safe Here...We Will Drive You Out.

    If/when law enforcement fails to crack down on such a threat, it sends a further message that the basic protections of the law don't cover everyone equally, and so it is effectively OK to terrorize some people and not others. Governments have a vested interest in the APPEARANCE of equal treatment. People who (rightly or wrongly) perceive the government to not be acting in their interest are less likely to participate in civil society, less likely to align with and communicate with law enforcement, less likely to invest (financially and through participation) in community activities associated with the government, etc. This separation, in turn, fosters a political environment in which this kind of systemic inequality leads to isolation, which in turn leads to serious differential results in the economic and social standing of people based upon their group associations (including, for example, "race"). In this manner, the terrorists (the cross-burners) end up indirectly achieving their goal: by treating a particular group as inferior and worthy of threat and violence, a series of reactions ultimately leads to their differential treatment, and then through social momentum (including self-segregation born out of anticipated discrimination), we end up with a situation where members of the targeted group actually are treated differently (worse) than others. This result -- a success for the terrorists -- sends a green light to other individuals and groups who begin to (correctly) see targeted violence as a feasible strategy for change, and the government interest in preventing that kind of precedent should be obvious.

    But in any case, the larger point regarding HCE's is that NO, they do NOT punish thought. They enhance penalties/sentences for what are already criminal acts, and the basis of these sentencing enhancements is recognition of the additional concrete harm to larger communities beyond the direct targets of a specific crime.

    People may of course argue up and down and sideways about whether or not they endorse this approach to sentencing, but let's at least accurately acknowledge what it is and is not...it is NOT an attempt to punish certain thoughts; it is an institutional recognition of additional harm. Polices should be supported/opposed based upon what they are, not what they are falsely painted to be.
    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.

Page 2 of 20 FirstFirst 123412 ... 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
  •