• 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!

Is the Family Research Council shooting a hate crime?

Wake

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
18,536
Reaction score
2,438
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
FBI officials said Thursday that the shooting of a security guard at the Family Research Council's D.C. headquarters on Wednesday may fall in the "hate crime/terrorism nexus," depending on the shooter's motive. FRC is a socially conservative Christian advocacy organization that opposes gay marriage and abortion, among its other causes. In an interview on Fox News Thursday, FRC President Tony Perkins said he thought the attack should be classified as "terrorism," but some other commentators have suggested that the shooting may also qualify as a hate crime, if it can be proven that the attacker was targeting the group's religious beliefs.

Suspected shooter Floyd Lee Corkins II "has strong opinions with respect to those he believes do not treat homosexuals in a fair manner," according to his parents, and Corkins is said to have yelled that he did not like FRC's politics before opening fire. He was also found with a backpack that contained more than a dozen Chick-Fil-a sandwiches, which could be a reference to the chicken chain president's very public opposition to gay marriage.

Is the Family Research Council shooting a hate crime? | The Lookout - Yahoo! News

What do you think about this issue?
 
Imo, most crimes are based on hate at some level. Whether or not it will be considered a *hate crime* as typically accepted, remains to be seen.
 
What do you think about this issue?

It could very well be a hate crime.

Which by no means means that the head of this company ISN'T a hater, or that those to whom he has contributed should not be considered a hate group.
 
Terrorism...I could see that, if his intent was to harm someone to make a political statement or to attempt to extort political concessions. Hate crime...that's a little bit harder to connect the dots. Assuming that it's confirmed that he targeted the FRC because of their anti-gay rhetoric, it's pretty difficult to make the jump to "targeting them for their religious beliefs." They're a political organization with a political agenda, not some random religious person who happens to think homosexuality is a sin.

The Westboro Baptist Church routinely gets roughed up and has their property vandalized. Yet I don't think anyone calls crimes against them "hate crimes." I think the same logic would apply here.
 
I think the hate crime designation is pretty useless. "It was a hate crime." "No! It wasn't!" "Yes! It was!" Ad infinitum. The guy shot somebody; attempted murder. Let the judge decide if it was a hate crime after they convict him. Then he can use whatever sentence so applies.

Trying to also convince the jury it was a hate crime could very possibly confuse the jury. He should be tried for attempted murder. That's the crime that was committed.
 
I thought the shooting was being defined as "domestic terrorism."
 
In order for it to be a hate crime it has to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime is hate motivated.
 
I think the hate crime designation is pretty useless. "It was a hate crime." "No! It wasn't!" "Yes! It was!" Ad infinitum. The guy shot somebody; attempted murder. Let the judge decide if it was a hate crime after they convict him. Then he can use whatever sentence so applies.

Trying to also convince the jury it was a hate crime could very possibly confuse the jury. He should be tried for attempted murder. That's the crime that was committed.

Just so. Adding "hate" in front of "crime" is a pointless emotionalization of the act, much like adding "assault" before "rifle".
 
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.
 
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.
 
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).
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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 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.

That would eliminate the prosecution as domestic terrorism too since that is also a crime of motivation.

FYI, before some one makes the wrong assumption: I do oppose hate crime laws.
 
That would eliminate the prosecution as domestic terrorism too since that is also a crime of motivation.

FYI, before some one makes the wrong assumption: I do oppose hate crime laws.

Then we are in agreement-----------hooray, agreement.
 
That would eliminate the prosecution as domestic terrorism too since that is also a crime of motivation.

So is 1st degree murder. Get rid of that?

FYI, before some one makes the wrong assumption: I do oppose hate crime laws.

I doubt you understand the requirements for such prosecution.
 
So is 1st degree murder. Get rid of that?

First degree murder is "willfull and premeditated". Second degree is not premeditated. Premeditation is not motivation. So you would be wrong.

I doubt you understand the requirements for such prosecution.

And you would be wrong here as well.
 
Back
Top Bottom