• 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

ecofarm said:
The intent in self defense is self defense. The intent in murder is murder.
Click to expand...

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

"Motive" is why the crime is taking place. You have to establish that as part of your theory of the crime. Motive is about detective work. It demonstrates that the accused had a reason for what he did. Failing to establish that the accused had a motive makes the prosecutor have a more difficult job.

"Intent" is simply whether or not the action was deliberate or accidental.

Not knowing that these two elements are different something something special olympics of vocabulary.
 
Hate Crime:

“criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.” Hate itself is not a crime—and the FBI is mindful of protecting freedom of speech and other civil liberties.

FBI — Overview
 
I guess it could be then.
opendebate said:
Hate Crime:

“criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.” Hate itself is not a crime—and the FBI is mindful of protecting freedom of speech and other civil liberties.

FBI — Overview
Click to expand...
 
Grand Mal said:
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.
Click to expand...

Beating someone to death in aggression for any reason is already criminal, as it should be.

If you want to punish him more severely than anyone else who beats someone to death in aggression for his speech or his thoughts, then yes, you want to punish someone specifically for their expression and thought, and that is wrong.
 
Blue_State said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I understand your point.
 
JayDubya said:
Intent (or not) is not the same thing as motive.

"Motive" is why the crime is taking place. You have to establish that as part of your theory of the crime. Motive is about detective work. It demonstrates that the accused had a reason for what he did. Failing to establish that the accused had a motive makes the prosecutor have a more difficult job.
Click to expand...

And that is what hate crime is about.
 
JayDubya said:
you want to punish someone specifically for their expression and thought, and that is wrong.
Click to expand...

False. The additional punishment is for motive, because motive matters.
 
ecofarm said:
False. The additional punishment is for motive, because motive matters.
Click to expand...

Yes, you obviously support punishing people differently based upon their motive for the crime they committed, the harm they cause others. If they have doubleplusungood reasons they should obviously be sent to miniluv.

Thank you for proving my point that you support the notion of thought crime.
 
JayDubya said:
Yes, you obviously support punishing people differently based upon their motive for the crime they committed.
Click to expand...

You don't agree with different punishment for first and second degree murder and self defense? You think all killings, regardless of context, should be prosecuted as manslaughter?

You don't agree with charging someone for terrorism with something other than manslaughter?
 
mak2 said:
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.
Click to expand...

You have to beat them up one at a time. If you hate someone for his membership in a group you hate, fine, but if you beat him to death because of it, that's turning hate into a crime.
 
ecofarm said:
You don't agree with different punishment for first and second degree murder and self defense?
Click to expand...

That is not at all what I said, nor could what I said be even reasonably be misconstrued as such.


Killing in self-defense isn't even a crime. Nor should it be, as it is an act without aggression.

Second degree murder is an aggressive homicide with intent but not premeditation.

First degree murder is an aggressive homicide with premeditation and intent.

The distinction between these three things has nothing to do with "motive," which isn't about what they did but why they did it. If you want "hate crimes" then you want to punish why they did it, which is different from whether or not they meant to do it, which is itself different from whether or not they had time beforehand and made a plan to do it.



What difference should it make if x kills y because x wants to steal y's shoes or because he found out y was sleeping with x's wife or because he doesn't like y's skin tone? The act is the same, a premeditated and intentional killing; none of the reasons above justify the action in any way.
 
Last edited:
JayDubya said:
Beating someone to death in aggression for any reason is already criminal, as it should be.

If you want to punish him more severely than anyone else who beats someone to death in aggression for his speech or his thoughts, then yes, you want to punish someone specifically for their expression and thought, and that is wrong.
Click to expand...

I think the point might be that the racial hatred prompted him to push things farther than he otherwise may have.

Also, it a group of individuals is more likely to be targeted for this kind of thing then I do understand the reasoning for calling them out as a group, specifically, that is included as a one protected under the law.
 
JayDubya said:
Beating someone to death in aggression for any reason is already criminal, as it should be.

If you want to punish him more severely than anyone else who beats someone to death in aggression for his speech or his thoughts, then yes, you want to punish someone specifically for their expression and thought, and that is wrong.
Click to expand...

I see where you're coming from, but the motive needs to be considered, and some motives punished more severely than others. If Joe kills Bill because he thinks Bill is threatening him, or Joe kills Bill because he thinks Bill screwed his wife, or Joe kills Bill in a fight over money, or Joe kills Bill because Bill is black, there's four different crimes.
 
JayDubya said:
That is not at all what I said, nor could what I said be even reasonably be misconstrued as such.


Killing in self-defense isn't even a crime. Nor should it be, as it is an act without aggression.

Second degree murder is an aggressive homicide with intent but not premeditation.

First degree murder is an aggressive homicide with premeditation and intent.

The distinction between these three things has nothing to do with "motive."
Click to expand...


And killing with the intent of striking fear in the target population is a hate crime.


What difference should it make if x kills y because x wants to steal y's shoes or because he found out y was sleeping with x's wife or because he doesn't like y's skin tone? The act is the same, a premeditated and intentional killing; none of the reasons above justify the action in any way.
Click to expand...

Targeting a population is more damaging to society than targeting for property.
 
ecofarm said:
And killing with the intent of striking fear in the target population is a hate crime.
Click to expand...

No, a "hate crime" is punishing someone for their motive, which is what you approve of and I never will.

Targeting a population is more damaging to society than targeting for property.
Click to expand...

"Damage to society?" Interesting how to you, the wronged party goes from the victim to all of society because of someone's thoughts about why they're killing the guy.
 
From what I read, it was not a "hate crime" in terms of necessarily motivated by race. Shouting racial slurs in a fight does not mean that was the motive of the fight.

If the allegations are true as stated in the article it is a murder case, but not a hate crimes case.

However, the part reading "Tingling, an ex-boxer" - combined with the other person being in his 50s - may raise question as to who really threw the first punch. An "ex boxer" so intensely in love with his daughter very possibly is who initially turned it physical.

If someone were to approach my daughter at age 15 making an obscene gesture and hateful comments, it is a certainty I would have all but beaten that man to death - but would have stopped at killing him for my daughter's sake and the greater legal liabilities for killing someone. Beating someone down and physically harming men was not rare for me in my past. The primary focus of my whole lift to that time was developing the ability to do so.

His being an "ex boxer" likely would cause him to have high confidence in his ability to deck that 50+ year old harasser. However, now in my mid 30s I do realize that time and lack of constant training, practice and ongoing experience is diminishing my abilities in "fighting." I would guess it is difficult for many people to accept they are not as capable of certain things now what they once were in the distance past.

Simply, I question if the case is as simplistic as someone approached someone of another ethnicity for the purpose of beating the person up. It may have began as a verbal confrontation - and as this included his daughter it may have been the "ex boxer" who threw the first punch.

If so, the question then is what happened after the ex-boxer was down? We are only hearing the prosecution's story.
 
Last edited:
JayDubya said:
"Damage to society?" Interesting how to you, the wronged party goes from the victim to all of society because of someone's thoughts about why they're killing the guy.
Click to expand...

Society is always a victim of crime. The system provides justice for society, not an individual. An individual's desire for justice can never be satisfied.
 
AGENT J said:
just curious why anybody would ever think that?

I mean dont get wrong things are MUCH better than they were but by no means is harassment based on gender, race, sexuality, religion etc rare
Click to expand...

Well, for one,
two guys in a fist fight, one would think there's very little time for calling a person names, let alone racial slurs. I can only imagine that the person who is locked up now has some kind of an old problem, he never evolved to accept people for their color, race, ethnicity, or diversity. He never grew up and kept his hatred in his heart and mind.

I wouldn't think something of this nature would happen in Chicago with a majority of people who accept diversity. Chicago is known for it's big shoulders.

I grew up there, and in my 20's, I had probably 3 or 4 black friends, and we'd call each other names, but none of that was ever taken seriously. The name calling never, ever took place out in public though, it was usually when we hung together and played basketball, baseball or football, or at private gatherings filled with mad dog 20/20 and Ripple and maryjane.

I might not expect to hear about something like this ever happening today, except possibly in a southern state. Attacks like these I believe are pretty rare in my opinion.
 
mak2 said:
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.
Click to expand...

In Texas, it was a black man who was dragged to his death behind a pickup truck, and it wasn't that many years ago. It was after that when Texas adopted it's own hate crime enhancement. Even Rick Perry, who hates government, supported that. So do I.
 
AJiveMan said:
1.)Well, for one,
two guys in a fist fight, one would think there's very little time for calling a person names, let alone racial slurs.
2.) I can only imagine that the person who is locked up now has some kind of an old problem, he never evolved to accept people for their color, race, ethnicity, or diversity. He never grew up and kept his hatred in his heart and mind.
3.)I wouldn't think something of this nature would happen in Chicago with a majority of people who accept diversity. Chicago is known for it's big shoulders.
4.)I grew up there, and in my 20's, I had probably 3 or 4 black friends, and we'd call each other names, but none of that was ever taken seriously. The name calling never, ever took place out in public though, it was usually when we hung together and played basketball, baseball or football, or at private gatherings filled with mad dog 20/20 and Ripple and maryjane.
I might not expect to hear about something like this ever happening today, except possibly in a southern state. Attacks like these I believe are pretty rare in my opinion.
Click to expand...

1.) seems it wasnt really a fight though just an assault on a guy with a pacemaker, so theres lots of time to talk crap
2.) this is for sure, theres definitely something mentally wrong with this nutbag
3.) its a city :shrug: while theres probably a million people in and around the city that arent bigots there are also many bigots too. I dont know of anywhere that isnt like that.
4.) thats great, many normal people do the same
5.) you would be mistaken, while i wouldn't say they are rampant, unfortunately and sadly they certainly aren't "rare" either
 
AGENT J said:
1.) seems it wasnt really a fight though just an assault on a guy with a pacemaker, so theres lots of time to talk crap
2.) this is for sure, theres definitely something mentally wrong with this nutbag
3.) its a city :shrug: while theres probably a million people in and around the city that arent bigots there are also many bigots too. I dont know of anywhere that isnt like that.
4.) thats great, many normal people do the same
5.) you would be mistaken, while i wouldn't say they are rampant, unfortunately and sadly they certainly aren't "rare" either
Click to expand...

5. What did conservatives keep call those attacks on Michigan Avenue? You know, the ones where black teens targeted people walking down the sidewalk? The teens were snatching purses, Iphones and things of value. After that, Chicago police stepped up a large police presence.

Conservatives on some other internet blogs and forums called them something, but their terminology escapes my thought right now.

I believe it's a matter of opinion when it comes to isolated, rare, and other choice wording.

Whenever we youngsters got into fist fights, the last thing we thought of was name calling. Yes, words exchanged at first, but when the fight began, we were more concerned with the outcome. I sort of surprised that a firearm wasn't used, at least that seems to be the weapon of choice for some.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
There are no protected classes under US hate crime law. Middle-aged, hetero, white males have been victims of hate crimes.
Click to expand...

Being a victim of a hate crime and not having the prosecutor charge the perp with a hate crime for his hate-crime attack on you is a pretty hollow honor.

I'm always eager to learn new things. You made a definitive statement that middle-aged, hetero, white males have been victims of hate crimes. This surely indicates that you have actually know this to be true. Would you please link up some evidence in support of your position.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom