• 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!

Feds: 'Knockout' attack was a hate crime.

Mason66 said:
1.)What is it you have a problem with?

2.) Please explain to me why this is a federal case.

3.) The feds can't just come in and take a case over when they have no jurisdiction.

4.) Was the victim a federal employee or did this happen on federal property?

5.) This was a local assault case period.

6.) I haven't checked it out, but an earlier poster said the feds can come in of the local case fails.

7.) Please show me where the local case was even filed, let alone failed.
Click to expand...

1.) nothing, you post is just factual inaccurate and you havent supported anything you have said yet
2.) law makes it that way
3.) yes they can because they do have jurisdiction as you were already told by multiple people and ignored
4.) dont have to be see #3
5.) the assult was local the crime is federal PERIOD lol
6.) they can come in when ever they want when its a federal crime
7.) doesnt have to be nor does it have to fail

In the United States, a federal crime or federal offense is an act that is made illegal by U.S. federal legislation. In the United States, criminal law and prosecution happen at both the federal and the state levels; thus a “federal crime” is one that is prosecuted under federal criminal law, and not under a state's criminal law, under which most of the crimes committed in the United States are prosecuted.


Hate crime laws in the United States protect against hate crimes (also known as bias crimes) motivated by enmity or animus against a protected class. Although state laws vary, current statutes permit federal prosecution of hate crimes committed on the basis of a person's protected characteristics of race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)/FBI, as well as campus security authorities, are required to collect and publish hate crime statistics.
Click to expand...

like i said your post about what the feds can do is factually wrong


now i will ask the question s you keep dodging and running away from AGAIN and i bet you dodge them again.
Your question is what is holders "motivation" and i told you i dont know it seems the FEDS are doing thie jobs by law unless you have other info

so i ask


A.)What have his(holders) comments been? what as he said?
B.) is there something off topic you read that you want to discuss?
C.) was holder even mentioned in the OP?

D.)Maybe it was in the video i didnt watch the video all i read in the OP was this

"Hate crimes tear at the fabric of entire communities," U.S. Acting Assistant Attorney General Jocelyn Samuels said Thursday in a Justice Department statement announcing the charge against Barrett. "As always, the Civil Rights Division will work with our federal and state law enforcement partners to ensure that hate crimes are identified and prosecuted, and that justice is done."

Maybe that answers your question? does it?

lets see if you answer and now understand the feds can do this
 
I think the Feds prosecuting this case is counter-productive.

If the guy gets convicted he goes to Club Fed instead of a state **** hole where he belongs.
 
LaMidRighter said:
I don't believe in hate crime legislation, my opinion is it is feel good legislation based upon assigning differing standards to the same thing. That said this was a cowardly and disgusting act against a defenseless person and rather than creating a hate crime standard the idiot who did this should get hit with everything on the books; Abuse of the elderly, aggravated battery, attempted manslaughter/murder, willful injury. The victim did not deserve what happened to him, on that we can all agree, I just think that crimes should be punished according to everything but motivation, an armed robber for instance gets punished according to the laws he broke, whether that was to feed his family or score quick cash it's irrelevant to the actionable crime.
Click to expand...

this i sort of agree with

in general i dont like the term and its inconsistency IMO but i am fine with it as long as theres clear evidence.

I dont like the term but i do see the logic of the legislation, its basically similar to the degrees of murder, theft/robbery, grand theft etc and i think thats how the terminology should follow IMO.

Like premeditated murder is different from a rage killing and that im ok with

IMO thats how the laws should be written for this, if an assault murder or crime is committed based just on gender, race, religion etc then they should move to first degree murder/assaults etc.

BUT also be clear by that system all these PLANNED assaults would be the same when they were PLANNED and filmed etc.
 
AGENT J said:
this i sort of agree with

in general i dont like the term and its inconsistency IMO but i am fine with it as long as theres clear evidence.

I dont like the term but i do see the logic of the legislation, its basically similar to the degrees of murder, theft/robbery, grand theft etc and i think thats how the terminology should follow IMO.

Like premeditated murder is different from a rage killing and that im ok with

IMO thats how the laws should be written for this, if an assault murder or crime is committed based just on gender, race, religion etc then they should move to first degree murder/assaults etc.

BUT also be clear by that system all these PLANNED assaults would be the same when they were PLANNED and filmed etc.
Click to expand...
I don't have a problem for criminalizing targeting as part of law, I think my distaste comes from the way hate crimes legislation was sold. As it stands the laws currently criminalize motivations seen as not politically correct, I look at it like this, if a person beats up another person for characteristics it's a dick move, and that person should be required to attend classes as a condition of release like anger management and sensitivity training. I'm wary of punishing hate though simply because it gets into thought prohibition. I am more of a fan of nailing a perpetrator to the wall with everything we have on the books, concurrent sentencing to make sure they stay in a cell for a very long time, and roughly accomplishing the same thing.
 
LaMidRighter said:
I don't have a problem for criminalizing targeting as part of law, I think my distaste comes from the way hate crimes legislation was sold. As it stands the laws currently criminalize motivations seen as not politically correct, I look at it like this, if a person beats up another person for characteristics it's a dick move, and that person should be required to attend classes as a condition of release like anger management and sensitivity training. I'm wary of punishing hate though simply because it gets into thought prohibition. I am more of a fan of nailing a perpetrator to the wall with everything we have on the books, concurrent sentencing to make sure they stay in a cell for a very long time, and roughly accomplishing the same thing.
Click to expand...

I agree but dont you think thats very similar to what it does it just has very piss poor packaging/presentation


just like i said about 1st degree murder and a rage killing


planning a murder out as been deemed to be worse because it takes more incivility and more criminality then coming home and finding your wife having a three way with the UPS man and your brother and maybe you punch one of them or strangle somebody.

again this is just what is in place

I think hate crimes do the same thing but thier verbiage suck, like you said how they are sold is piss poor


but a person saying im just going to punch a person a run way or a person saying i cant wait, the first woman i see im punching her is getting a little extra punishment

again not saying i agree just saying the foundation of what the law is trying to do is based on logic already in the legal system, but like you said the selling of it is poor.

I get what your saying about thought prohibition but i think thoughts are very important in crimes.

Its just MY opinion but ill treat you different if you kill the guy that raped your daughter and murder your wife then you killing the neighbor because he was a jew.

Thoughts do matter IMO is certain cases dont you agree?
 
Mason66 said:
1.)I think the Feds prosecuting this case is counter-productive.

2.) If the guy gets convicted he goes to Club Fed instead of a state **** hole where he belongs.
Click to expand...

1.) so you acknowledge the fact they can now? you just dont like them following the law
2.) this is an opinion you are free to have

guess you have no answer to the questions
 
AGENT J said:
I agree but dont you think thats very similar to what it does it just has very piss poor packaging/presentation


just like i said about 1st degree murder and a rage killing


planning a murder out as been deemed to be worse because it takes more incivility and more criminality then coming home and finding your wife having a three way with the UPS man and your brother and maybe you punch one of them or strangle somebody.

again this is just what is in place

I think hate crimes do the same thing but thier verbiage suck, like you said how they are sold is piss poor
Click to expand...
Exactly, I would like for us as a country to revisit the argument and use proper legal reasoning for the additional punishment. I honestly believe if there was ever a perfect candidate for these types of laws it would be a person who victimizes an elderly man for the color of his skin, but I try to keep in mind that punishing thought for anything other than keeping dangerous people off the streets is dangerous in itself.


but a person saying im just going to punch a person a run way or a person saying i cant wait, the first woman i see im punching her is getting a little extra punishment
Click to expand...
I think that sucker punching a person to cause harm should be an additional charge in itself, but we can throw on all kinds of charges from attempted manslaughter/murder, reckless endangerment, negligent injury, aggravated battery, etc.

again not saying i agree just saying the foundation of what the law is trying to do is based on logic already in the legal system, but like you said the selling of it is poor.
Click to expand...
Right, I don't like a "just because" law, or a law to engineer a desired result, but rather something that has a logical connection from the crime to the punishment.

I get what your saying about thought prohibition but i think thoughts are very important in crimes.
Click to expand...
They absolutely are, and it's a great tool to catch a serial predator of any level crime, but punishing simple hate can be abused in the long term. If one wanted to call them "profiling" crimes even though it seems like semantics, it would make sense to punish targeting of people for violence rather than "hating" them. Rhetorical traps are a big pet peeve of mine though, so maybe it's me. :lol:

Its just MY opinion but ill treat you different if you kill the guy that raped your daughter and murder your wife then you killing the neighbor because he was a jew.
Click to expand...
Absolutely, and most juries and judges will as well. I'm not saying the motive is unimportant for the purposes of judgement, I just think to have a criminal law based upon motive can lead to undesired results given enough time and can waste resources if we are more worried about the mindset of the attacker rather than the motive.

Thoughts do matter IMO is certain cases dont you agree?
Click to expand...
To a certain degree they do, I think for punishment purposes the argument needs to be revisited. In this case, the person should be charged with a hate crime since it's already on the books, and every other law he broke in the meantime. I truly feel sorry for the victim and hope he is okay, but the little POS that did that to him should receive the harshest sentence possible.
 
LaMidRighter said:
1.)Exactly, I would like for us as a country to revisit the argument and use proper legal reasoning for the additional punishment. I honestly believe if there was ever a perfect candidate for these types of laws it would be a person who victimizes an elderly man for the color of his skin, but I try to keep in mind that punishing thought for anything other than keeping dangerous people off the streets is dangerous in itself.

2.) I think that sucker punching a person to cause harm should be an additional charge in itself, but we can throw on all kinds of charges from attempted manslaughter/murder, reckless endangerment, negligent injury, aggravated battery, etc.

3.) Right, I don't like a "just because" law, or a law to engineer a desired result, but rather something that has a logical connection from the crime to the punishment.

4.) They absolutely are, and it's a great tool to catch a serial predator of any level crime, but punishing simple hate can be abused in the long term. If one wanted to call them "profiling" crimes even though it seems like semantics, it would make sense to punish targeting of people for violence rather than "hating" them. Rhetorical traps are a big pet peeve of mine though, so maybe it's me. :lol:

5.) Absolutely, and most juries and judges will as well. I'm not saying the motive is unimportant for the purposes of judgement, I just think to have a criminal law based upon motive can lead to undesired results given enough time and can waste resources if we are more worried about the mindset of the attacker rather than the motive.

6.) To a certain degree they do, I think for punishment purposes the argument needs to be revisited. In this case, the person should be charged with a hate crime since it's already on the books, and every other law he broke in the meantime. I truly feel sorry for the victim and hope he is okay, but the little POS that did that to him should receive the harshest sentence possible.
Click to expand...

1.) agreed
2.) agree with this also, random acts of violence that could literally kill can EASILY be argued more dangerous than a confrontation.
3.) agree and i have seen this law be inconsistent. If the evidence is there use it, if not then dont.
4.) lol i dont think its you, i think theres a legit concern about abuse/inconstancy along with poor packaging that makes it worse. IMO your concerns are totally legit and can be backed up by the factual randomness of the charges at times.
5.) yes i agree with that 100% too, the level of the crime should be SECONDARY just like murder. Yes we are definitely sure you murder someone, so you are in trouble now we just have to decided 15, 25, double life or are we going to execute etc. Same should happen here.

these assaults are very dangerous and should be treated as such, the extras should come secondary.

Media plays a role in this too, sadly along with Americas attention span.

THe hate crime hides the elderly factor and the fact this could have resulted in a death.

6.) also agreed

also a pleasure talking to you even when we dont agree ;)
 
AGENT J said:
1.) agreed
2.) agree with this also, random acts of violence that could literally kill can EASILY be argued more dangerous than a confrontation.
3.) agree and i have seen this law be inconsistent. If the evidence is there use it, if not then dont.
4.) lol i dont think its you, i think theres a legit concern about abuse/inconstancy along with poor packaging that makes it worse. IMO your concerns are totally legit and can be backed up by the factual randomness of the charges at times.
5.) yes i agree with that 100% too, the level of the crime should be SECONDARY just like murder. Yes we are definitely sure you murder someone, so you are in trouble now we just have to decided 15, 25, double life or are we going to execute etc. Same should happen here.

these assaults are very dangerous and should be treated as such, the extras should come secondary.

Media plays a role in this too, sadly along with Americas attention span.

THe hate crime hides the elderly factor and the fact this could have resulted in a death.

6.) also agreed

also a pleasure talking to you even when we dont agree ;)
Click to expand...
Likewise to what I bolded. Laws should always IMO reflect the effects of the victimization and injury of others, I would never defend someone who victimizes the weak and to be perfectly honest, as much as I detest violence outside of a controlled sporting manner(boxing, MMA, martial arts, sparring, etc.) I even probably would have kicked that guy's ass for what he did to that elderly gentleman. Personally, I have no problem with this guy picking up a hate crime charge since it's already on the books and it appears very clear that his intent had a racist motive while I in general don't support laws based on "hate" factors, it may be hypocritical of me to take that stance but regardless that man did not deserve the injury he received and that sick punk needs as much prison time as we can legally give him, hopefully with daily beatings in general population.
 
MichaelJR said:
It's only racist if a white person does it. You didn't know?
Click to expand...

I wish people would stop saying minorities are immune from being found guilty of hate crimes or being "racist". It perpetuates a myth. Here are the facts:

FBI — Annual Hate Crimes Report Released

Of the 6,222 reported hate crimes, 6,216 were single-bias incidents—46.9 percent were racially motivated, 20.8 percent resulted from sexual orientation bias, 19.8 percent were motivated by religious bias, 11.6 stemmed from ethnicity/national origin bias, and 0.9 percent were prompted by disability bias.
Click to expand...

Of that 47%:

FBI — FBI Releases 2010 Hate Crime Statistics

Of the 6,008 known offenders, 58.6 percent were white and 18.4 percent were black. For 12.0 percent, the race was unknown, and the remaining known offenders were of other races.
Click to expand...

Now:

- You can go and pretend that you meant that the law doesn't punish racist minorities - However, that's easily proven false - fully 20% of all hate crime convictions involve minorities.
- You can pretend that the media doesn't pay much attention to it - However, that's just as false as per the new "Knockout Punch" craze.
- You can pretend that whites get tougher jail sentences for hate crimes - However, that will go against every report showing that minorities get tougher sentences.

In short, the next sequence of arguments you're about to make - and.. I'm sure some of them will put your adoptive family of Europeans who gave up their heritage in order to become 'Muricans - will be proven to be false.
 
Last edited:
LaMidRighter said:
Likewise to what I bolded. Laws should always IMO reflect the effects of the victimization and injury of others, I would never defend someone who victimizes the weak and to be perfectly honest, as much as I detest violence outside of a controlled sporting manner(boxing, MMA, martial arts, sparring, etc.) I even probably would have kicked that guy's ass for what he did to that elderly gentleman. Personally, I have no problem with this guy picking up a hate crime charge since it's already on the books and it appears very clear that his intent had a racist motive while I in general don't support laws based on "hate" factors, it may be hypocritical of me to take that stance but regardless that man did not deserve the injury he received and that sick punk needs as much prison time as we can legally give him, hopefully with daily beatings in general population.
Click to expand...

lol agreed!
 
AGENT J said:
1.) so you acknowledge the fact they can now? you just dont like them following the law
2.) this is an opinion you are free to have

guess you have no answer to the questions
Click to expand...

The feds can indeed run a case parallel to local authorities. However, I think the problem lays with the wording if the federal statute. For instance, the wording "protected class" is imho antithetical to "equal justice"... You can't have justice unless you prosecute equally regardless of race.
 
j-mac said:
The feds can indeed run a case parallel to local authorities. However, I think the problem lays with the wording if the federal statute. For instance, the wording "protected class" is imho antithetical to "equal justice"... You can't have justice unless you prosecute equally regardless of race.
Click to expand...

well since race is the class protected i dont see the problem at all, it factually applies to all races :shrug:
 
AGENT J said:
well since race is the class protected i dont see the problem at all, it factually applies to all races :shrug:
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm dense, but you'd have to explain that one to me.
 
j-mac said:
Maybe I'm dense, but you'd have to explain that one to me.
Click to expand...

hate crimes are based on the protected classes of race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability. So it factually applies equally to all races already.

what protected class are you talking about
 
AGENT J said:
hate crimes are based on the protected classes of race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability. So it factually applies equally to all races already.

what protected class are you talking about
Click to expand...

You have several listed correctly, the complete list is:

In United States Federal anti-discrimination law, a protected class is a characteristic of a person which cannot be targeted for discrimination.[1] The following characteristics are considered "Protected Classes" by Federal law:
Race – Civil Rights Act of 1964
Color – Civil Rights Act of 1964
Religion – Civil Rights Act of 1964
National origin – Civil Rights Act of 1964
Age (40 and over) – Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
Sex – Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Civil Rights Act of 1964
Pregnancy – Pregnancy Discrimination Act
Citizenship – Immigration Reform and Control Act
Familial status – Civil Rights Act of 1968 Title VIII: Housing cannot discriminate for having children, with an exception for senior housing
Disability status – Vocational Rehabilitation and Other Rehabilitation Services of 1973 and Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
Veteran status – Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 and Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act
Genetic information – Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act

Protected class - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As the argument of this particular thread is about why the DoJ went after this particular guy, as disgusting as his act was, many believe it to be a double standard of race prosecution, as Holder's DoJ is investigating to prosecute this guy (white), when equal crimes have happened with the assailants race being black, with a white, or Jewish victim.

An example of why discrimination laws like these so called "hate crimes" have a bias in the law can be seen in the EEOC explanation of application, it reads....

"...some courts take the position that if a white person relies on circumstantial evidence to establish a reverse discrimination claim, he or she must meet a heightened standard of proof."

Facts About Race/Color Discrimination

Now, why would a "white person" have a "heightened" standard of proof if the laws were applied equally?

In this case, the protected class I am talking about is based on the race of the victim, and as I stated, the victim in this crime was black, but to me it makes no difference, the crime was disgusting, and the perp should be prosecuted to what ever fullest extent of the law that we can level.

My question is why ONLY this perp. Other black perps in other similar crimes have expressed that they did the crimes they did, in at least one case resulting in death, against white victims are not being pursued as "hate crimes" on the federal level. At best it appears as bias stemming from the DoJ as to the criteria that they get involved, at worst, it is clear, and unabashed racism practiced against whites from the top of the DoJ using the power of the DoJ to go after white people, and let black people go for like crime.
 
j-mac said:
1.) You have several listed correctly, the complete list is:

In United States Federal anti-discrimination law, a protected class is a characteristic of a person which cannot be targeted for discrimination.[1] The following characteristics are considered "Protected Classes" by Federal law:
Race – Civil Rights Act of 1964
Color – Civil Rights Act of 1964
Religion – Civil Rights Act of 1964
National origin – Civil Rights Act of 1964
Age (40 and over) – Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
Sex – Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Civil Rights Act of 1964
Pregnancy – Pregnancy Discrimination Act
Citizenship – Immigration Reform and Control Act
Familial status – Civil Rights Act of 1968 Title VIII: Housing cannot discriminate for having children, with an exception for senior housing
Disability status – Vocational Rehabilitation and Other Rehabilitation Services of 1973 and Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
Veteran status – Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 and Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act
Genetic information – Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act

Protected class - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2.) As the argument of this particular thread is about why the DoJ went after this particular guy, as disgusting as his act was, many believe it to be a double standard of race prosecution, as Holder's DoJ is investigating to prosecute this guy (white), when equal crimes have happened with the assailants race being black, with a white, or Jewish victim.

3.)An example of why discrimination laws like these so called "hate crimes" have a bias in the law can be seen in the EEOC explanation of application, it reads....

"...some courts take the position that if a white person relies on circumstantial evidence to establish a reverse discrimination claim, he or she must meet a heightened standard of proof."

Facts About Race/Color Discrimination

Now, why would a "white person" have a "heightened" standard of proof if the laws were applied equally?

4.) In this case, the protected class I am talking about is based on the race of the victim, and as I stated, the victim in this crime was black, but to me it makes no difference, the crime was disgusting, and the perp should be prosecuted to what ever fullest extent of the law that we can level.

5.) My question is why ONLY this perp. Other black perps in other similar crimes have expressed that they did the crimes they did, in at least one case resulting in death, against white victims are not being pursued as "hate crimes" on the federal level.

6.) At best it appears as bias stemming from the DoJ as to the criteria that they get involved, at worst, it is clear, and unabashed racism practiced against whites from the top of the DoJ using the power of the DoJ to go after white people, and let black people go for like crime.
Click to expand...

1.) nope, try looking up the actual HATE CRIME law.
a list of of protected classes is NOT the hate crime law

hell you dont even list sexual orientation which was added October 28, 2009 to the HATE CRIME LAW and is not yet added to the federal protected classes for the anti-discrimination laws.

do you even know what the hate crime law is?
a list of protected classes from the anti-discrimination laws does not translate to hate crime laws

so when you are ready please let me know what protected class you seem to be talking about that only applies to one race or doesnt apply equally to all races.

2.) and all these arguments fail until theres information that holder/DOJ went after this case for some biased reason or it was even holder himself, he could of assigned it also. All meaningless random fantasy until theres more.

evidence is what matters and in this class there was clear cut evidence to at least pursue.
a video saying he wanted to go after a race is pretty solid ground to at least pursue

there is no proof of "EQUAL" crimes yet in other cases, what EQUAL crimes are you talking about?

3.) dont know why that is for discrimination cases, you would have to ask those courts(what ever they are) why that is and why that happens in DISCRIMINATION law which has nothing to do with this topic. You are very confused about laws, rules, evidence, equal cases and mixing things together.

maybe start a new thread about that topic

4.) yes in this case the protected class is RACE which applies to all races.

well in law, thoughts and motives very commonly play a role, many crimes rely on this. SO that would be the bases of what hate crime legislation is based on similar to murder one and man slaughter.

The perp will be prosecuted to the fullest of the LAW and if theres evidence there was an additional law broken HATE CRIME LAW he will be prosecuted on that law too.

5.) seems by the stories EVIDENCE is the reason, this guy said on video he wanted to attack a person based on race. Did this happen in other cases? IF it did then the same should result. There has to be EVIDENCE not just two different races involved lmao.

6.) based on what facts? at best you seem to be making that up and guessing lol. Seems at best they are doing exactly what the law requires.

But if you have factual proof that there was clear evidence or clear grounds, like there was in this case, that also excisted in other cases and it was ignored then ill agree with you 100%. Please present those facts now.

anything else i can do for you today?
 
Last edited:
AGENT J said:
1.) nope, try looking up the actual HATE CRIME law.
a list of of protected classes is NOT the hate crime law

hell you dont even list sexual orientation which was added October 28, 2009 to the HATE CRIME LAW and is not yet added to the federal protected classes for the anti-discrimination laws.

do you even know what the hate crime law is?
a list of protected classes from the anti-discrimination laws does not translate to hate crime laws

so when you are ready please let me know what protected class you seem to be talking about that only applies to one race or doesnt apply equally to all races.

2.) and all these arguments fail until theres information that holder/DOJ went after this case for some biased reason or it was even holder himself, he could of assigned it also. All meaningless random fantasy until theres more.

evidence is what matters and in this class there was clear cut evidence to at least pursue.
a video saying he wanted to go after a race is pretty solid ground to at least pursue

there is no proof of "EQUAL" crimes yet in other cases, what EQUAL crimes are you talking about?

3.) dont know why that is for discrimination cases, you would have to ask those courts(what ever they are) why that is and why that happens in DISCRIMINATION law which has nothing to do with this topic. You are very confused about laws, rules, evidence, equal cases and mixing things together.

maybe start a new thread about that topic

4.) yes in this case the protected class is RACE which applies to all races.

well in law, thoughts and motives very commonly play a role, many crimes rely on this. SO that would be the bases of what hate crime legislation is based on similar to murder one and man slaughter.

The perp will be prosecuted to the fullest of the LAW and if theres evidence there was an additional law broken HATE CRIME LAW he will be prosecuted on that law too.

5.) seems by the stories EVIDENCE is the reason, this guy said on video he wanted to attack a person based on race. Did this happen in other cases? IF it did then the same should result. There has to be EVIDENCE not just two different races involved lmao.

6.) based on what facts? at best you seem to be making that up and guessing lol. Seems at best they are doing exactly what the law requires.

But if you have factual proof that there was clear evidence or clear grounds, like there was in this case, that also excisted in other cases and it was ignored then ill agree with you 100%. Please present those facts now.

anything else i can do for you today?
Click to expand...

Silly me, I thought you wanted to have a discussion on the matter. I have no interest in being insulted, and lectured to by you, with your arrogant tone....Have a nice day.
 
j-mac said:
1.)Silly me, I thought you wanted to have a discussion on the matter.
2.)I have no interest in being insulted, and lectured to by you, with your arrogant tone....
3.)Have a nice day.
Click to expand...

thats what i thought

1.) yes silly you because you because to have a discussion you have to have substance and you would have to know what you are actually talkign about, it has to be on topic
2.) you were never insulted or lectured, you were educated on the topic and corrected so the discussion could actually progress in a productive manner but i guess this doesn't interest you at all as you just proved

3.) i will, thank you, you do the same

after you read what hate crime actually be ready to have this discussion and to not dodge the questions. Also be ready to bring accurate, factual and topical information to the table

start with any facts that support your currently absurd claim that there is bias in this case and that the other cases are "equal"

also im still waiting for what protected class only applies to one race under hate crime laws

like i said if you can bring facts or logic to the table about your claim ill agree 100%, let me know when you can
 
AGENT J said:
thats what i thought

1.) yes silly you because you because to have a discussion you have to have substance and you would have to know what you are actually talkign about, it has to be on topic
2.) you were never insulted or lectured, you were educated on the topic and corrected so the discussion could actually progress in a productive manner but i guess this doesn't interest you at all as you just proved

3.) i will, thank you, you do the same

after you read what hate crime actually be ready to have this discussion and to not dodge the questions. Also be ready to bring accurate, factual and topical information to the table

start with any facts that support your currently absurd claim that there is bias in this case and that the other cases are "equal"

also im still waiting for what protected class only applies to one race under hate crime laws

like i said if you can bring facts or logic to the table about your claim ill agree 100%, let me know when you can
Click to expand...

That's ok, I won't be having anymore conversations with you.
 
j-mac said:
That's ok, I won't be having anymore conversations with you.
Click to expand...

translation: you cant support your absurd claim and you have no facts to bring to the table to participate in an accurate, factual or logical discussion on this matter. Got it.

let me know when this changes
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom