• 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!

Chicago Man Facing Hate Crime/Murder Charge

I must have missed the hate crime part of the story
 
The attacker used racial slurs during the attack. I can almost see hate crimes when the crime is designed to effect a group, like the lynching of the past effected an entrire race, not just the lynchee. But I have a hard time seeing it wehn it is one on one.
I must have missed the hate crime part of the story
 
It was right there in the text.

There seems to be no doubt that the assailant is a jerk and deserves to be in custody. Calling someone racially insensitive names while you are fighting them doesn't, it seems to me, quite bring you into hate-crime territory.

I view hate-crime as very serious and I hate to see the term bandied about and watered down.
 
There seems to be no doubt that the assailant is a jerk and deserves to be in custody. Calling someone racially insensitive names while you are fighting them doesn't, it seems to me, quite bring you into hate-crime territory.

I think the law determines that this is exactly what brings you into hate-crime territory - criminal action aggravated by racial abuse. Whether it should or not is a different matter, but I believe that by law, it does.

What aggravating factors do you believe would constitute bringing the offence into the hate-crime category?
 
Something that causes a reaction to a class or group of people. Such as a lynching used to show blacks what might happen to them if they dont stay in their place, or dragging a gay guy behind a pick up truck cause he is gay.
I think the law determines that this is exactly what brings you into hate-crime territory - criminal action aggravated by racial abuse. Whether it should or not is a different matter, but I believe that by law, it does.

What aggravating factors do you believe would constitute bringing the offence into the hate-crime category?
 
Michael Tingling was a large dude. I imagine the whole situation was scary due to the size of the two men. I have to imagine the assailant was also a large man but I haven't seen his picture.
 
Something that causes a reaction to a class or group of people. Such as a lynching used to show blacks what might happen to them if they dont stay in their place, or dragging a gay guy behind a pick up truck cause he is gay.

I don't really think offences have to be quite as heinous as that in order to be recognised as hate crimes. All that has to be proven is that a crime was motivated by prejudice against someone because of their membership of a social group. Your two (highly extreme) examples fit this definition, but so does the crime in question, if the attacker committed the crime because Mr Tingling was black. I guess that's what the courts must decide.
 
Who in this government dictates who we chose to love and hate. Set the guy free.
 
Who in this government dictates who we chose to love and hate. Set the guy free.

Hate crime in the US has nothing to do with whom one hates. It's to do with organized terrorism.

You see, organized terrorism is much more harmful to society than random property crimes and, thus, must be acknowledged and addressed appropriately.
 
Calling someone racially insensitive names while you are fighting them doesn't, it seems to me, quite bring you into hate-crime territory.

Legally it doesn't, either. Spewing crap during the crime does not prove motive.
 
For it to be a hate crime Firek would have had to deliberately target the victim because here or she was a member of a protected class.

There are two errors in charging:

1. This isn't a hate crime.

2. Murder requires prior planning. Firek punched the guy and he died. That's manslaughter.
 
"Hate crime" is thought crime.

His punishment should be no different than anyone else who walked up to some random dude and punched them, causing their death... aggressive, lethal violence... the punishment should be severe regardless.

"Hate crime." Feh.
 
For it to be a hate crime Firek would have had to deliberately target the victim because here or she was a member of a protected class.

There are no protected classes under US hate crime law. Middle-aged, hetero, white males have been victims of hate crimes.

The requirement for hate crime in the US is: No other motive than to strike fear in the target population. Such motive is generally established by the accused being a member of or possessing propaganda from a known hate group targeting the victim's group.
 
"Hate crime" is thought crime.


It's no more a thought crime than 1st degree murder. It's a matter of motive.

By your "logic" all killings would be prosecuted as manslaughter.

Your inability to grasp the importance of motive is sad. This isn't the special olympics of law, take the ignorance elsewhere.
 
It's no more a thought crime than 1st degree murder. It's a matter of motive.

By your "logic" all killings would be prosecuted as manslaughter.

Intent (or not) is not the same thing as motive. Premeditation (or not) is not the same thing as motive.

Motive is an element of crime theory - it should never be in and of itself criminalized, because that is absolutely criminalizing thoughts the state doesn't like.

Your inability to grasp the importance of motive is sad. This isn't the special olympics of law, take the ignorance elsewhere.

My, how inept. Thanks, I'll take your oh-so civil suggestion that I'm "retarded" as your concession.
 
Last edited:
Intent (or not) is not the same thing as motive. Premeditation (or not) is not the same thing as motive.

Sure it is.

The difference between 1st degree murder and justified self defense is motive.

Ignoring motive, intent and such is for disabled people.
 
Sure it is.

The difference between 1st degree murder and justified self defense is motive.

No, the actions are inherently different. One is killing in aggression, the other is not.

You don't need to establish "motive" for a killing in self-defense; that is not a crime.
 
Who in this government dictates who we chose to love and hate. Set the guy free.

The guy beat someone to death and you want to set him free?
 
Who in this government dictates who we chose to love and hate. Set the guy free.
Don't worry Rhinefire. You are free to hate as much as you want to. You just aren't free to kill someone because of it.
 
No, the actions are inherently different. One is killing in aggression, the other is not.

You don't need to establish "motive" for a killing in self-defense; that is not a crime.

The intent in self defense is self defense. The intent in murder is murder.

The motive in stealing and robbing is property. The motive in hate crimes is to strike fear in the target population.

Semantic games will not save you from the obvious.

Intent and motive matters. Pretending it does not is stupid.
 
"Hate crime" is thought crime.

His punishment should be no different than anyone else who walked up to some random dude and punched them, causing their death... aggressive, lethal violence... the punishment should be severe regardless.

"Hate crime." Feh.

No it isn't. He can hate blacks all he wants but if he beats one to death while calling him a "fvcking nigger" he's turned his hate into a crime. He can (and of course will) deny the racial motivation but his words at the time betray him.
 
No it isn't. He can hate blacks all he wants but if he beats one to death while calling him a "fvcking nigger" he's turned his hate into a crime.

False. Spewing crap during a crime is not sufficient for a hate crime conviction.
 
The difference in a hate crime is it is a crime against a group of people, not just a single person. The way I understand it is I can beat you up simply because you are black, but when I or my group instill fear in others is when it becomes a hate crime.
No it isn't. He can hate blacks all he wants but if he beats one to death while calling him a "fvcking nigger" he's turned his hate into a crime. He can (and of course will) deny the racial motivation but his words at the time betray him.
 
Back
Top Bottom