• 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!

Utah man gets maximum sentence in hate crime case

"A hate crime is a traditional offense like murder, arson, or vandalism with an added element of bias" now please explain how you can commit a hate crime without a bias towards the victim.

because the link proves you wrong, you might want to read more of it . . . . . ill wait
 
because the link proves you wrong, you might want to read more of it . . . . . ill wait

There's no right or wrong here there's me asking you how a hate crime can exist without bias now please answer the question
 
There's no right or wrong here there's me asking you how a hate crime can exist without bias now please answer the question

no there is definitely a right or wrong and your assumption is factually wrong and being inconsistent and moving the goal post and back pedalling wont change that

here is your question:"Can you be charged with a hate crime without a bias towards the victims identity"

the factual answer is yes

do you disagree with that answer?
 
no there is definitely a right or wrong and your assumption is factually wrong and being inconsistent and moving the goal post and back pedalling wont change that

here is your question:"Can you be charged with a hate crime without a bias towards the victims identity"

the factual answer is yes

do you disagree with that answer?

I do disagree with that answer and I'm asking you how so please answer the question. How can you be charged with a hate crime without any bias towards the victims identity. You "accused me" of question dodging and now you're not answering.
 
1.)I do disagree with that answer
2.) and I'm asking you how so please answer the question.
3.) How can you be charged with a hate crime without any bias towards the victims identity. You "accused me" of question dodging and now you're not answering.

1.) and you are factually wrong
2.) already provided the link, READ IT lol
3.) that is a lie since i did answer. Not my fault you cant understand it, all you have to do is read the definition of hate crime and you will see the answer to your question:

"Can you be charged with a hate crime without a bias towards the victims identity"
the answer is yes

here ill help you since you are too lazy or dont understand

heres a qoute from the link that prove its not a thought crime and the answer is yes

"Congress has defined a hate crime as a “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."
 
1.) and you are factually wrong
2.) already provided the link, READ IT lol
3.) that is a lie since i did answer. Not my fault you cant understand it, all you have to do is read the definition of hate crime and you will see the answer to your question:

"Can you be charged with a hate crime without a bias towards the victims identity"
the answer is yes

here ill help you since you are too lazy or dont understand

heres a qoute from the link that prove its not a thought crime and the answer is yes

"Congress has defined a hate crime as a “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."


"Congress has defined a hate crime as a “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."

So you need to be motivated by a bias against a race, religion .etc .etc but you don't need to have a bias towards the identity of the victim. Ok show me an example of a hate crime where someone can be motivated by his personal bias but not motivated with a bias towards the victims identity
 
Last edited:
"Congress has defined a hate crime as a “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."

So you need to be motivated by a bias against a race, religion .etc .etc but you don't need to have a bias towards the identity of the victim. Ok show me an example of a hate crime where someone can be motivated by his personal bias but not motivated with a bias towards the victims identity

read it again because you are wrong, focus on the words "A" and "property" and then read your question as you asked it.

the answer is yes and that fact will not change
 
1.) and you are factually wrong
2.) already provided the link, READ IT lol
3.) that is a lie since i did answer. Not my fault you cant understand it, all you have to do is read the definition of hate crime and you will see the answer to your question:

"Can you be charged with a hate crime without a bias towards the victims identity"
the answer is yes

here ill help you since you are too lazy or dont understand

heres a qoute from the link that prove its not a thought crime and the answer is yes

"Congress has defined a hate crime as a “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."

Let me put it to you simply. You have to prove personal bias in a hate crime case through court proceedings. Effectively if it becomes the nature of the trial to prove that he committed a hate crime, crime motivated by personal bias, then it becomes the nature of the trial to prove the ideology and opinions of the person. In order to prove that you need to understand the thoughts and opinions of the perpetrator.

The illegal action of a the crime is on trial yes, but having a hate crime charge further suggests that the motivation based on the perpetrators ideology is illegal more so then just the act itself. In a sense it's illegal to attack some one, and it's illegal to be motivated by your own personal bias in the action of attacking the individual. This is how it is a thought crime. Your personal bias gets put on trial, not to simply discuss the motivation to prove you intentionally harmed the individual, but that the fact that your motivation of being biased was also illegal as well.

With that being said it violates the 14th amendment because it protects a certain group of victims more so on the basis of motivation then it does to others. Effectively I could be shot by a crazy white guy who is biased towards blacks, but if a black guy is shot by a white guy with the white guy showing a bias towards blacks the black guy is now protected more favorably under the federal government, which is a contradiction towards the 14th amendment of the equal protection clause.

I know I know your going to tell me I'm wrong, but the fact still remains the minute you charge someone with a hate crime, the persons political or religious beliefs and opinions become the scope of the trial, this is how hate crime legislation is actually thought crime legislation.
 
read it again because you are wrong, focus on the words "A" and "property" and then read your question as you asked it.

the answer is yes and that fact will not change

Ok no example given nice question dodge
 
1.) Let me put it to you simply. You have to prove personal bias in a hate crime case through court proceedings. Effectively if it becomes the nature of the trial to prove that he committed a hate crime, crime motivated by personal bias, then it becomes the nature of the trial to prove the ideology and opinions of the person. In order to prove that you need to understand the thoughts and opinions of the perpetrator.
2.)The illegal action of a the crime is on trial yes, but having a hate crime charge further suggests that the motivation based on the perpetrators ideology is illegal more so then just the act itself. In a sense it's illegal to attack some one, and it's illegal to be motivated by your own personal bias in the action of attacking the individual. This is how it is a thought crime. Your personal bias gets put on trial, not to simply discuss the motivation to prove you intentionally harmed the individual, but that the fact that your motivation of being biased was also illegal as well.
3.)With that being said it violates the 14th amendment because it protects a certain group of victims more so on the basis of motivation then it does to others. Effectively I could be shot by a crazy white guy who is biased towards blacks, but if a black guy is shot by a white guy with the white guy showing a bias towards blacks the black guy is now protected more favorably under the federal government, which is a contradiction towards the 14th amendment of the equal protection clause.
4.)I know I know your going to tell me I'm wrong, but the fact still remains the minute you charge someone with a hate crime, the persons political or religious beliefs and opinions become the scope of the trial, this is how hate crime legislation is actually thought crime legislation.

1.) which doesnt change the fact that the answer to YOUR question is yes
2.) this is nothing more than you opinion that you cant back up with any facts and that many other laws are based on
3.) theres no argument for that what so ever, if you disagree simply show me the link, law, rights, court cases that support it
4.) not me. Law, rights, facts and the definition of those laws prove you wrong . . . remind us what you have supporting your claims besides "nu-huh and yeah-huh"

good luck and let us know when you can prove, using facts its a thought crime and magically different lol
 
Ok no example given nice question dodge

translation: you are incapable of understanding the answer and definitions given so you are deflection. Nobody honest, educated and objective will buy it though

the definition and my answer proves you wrong, I even bolded the parts you should focus on lol :shrug:
let me know when that fact changes
 
1.) which doesnt change the fact that the answer to YOUR question is yes
2.) this is nothing more than you opinion that you cant back up with any facts and that many other laws are based on
3.) theres no argument for that what so ever, if you disagree simply show me the link, law, rights, court cases that support it
4.) not me. Law, rights, facts and the definition of those laws prove you wrong . . . remind us what you have supporting your claims besides "nu-huh and yeah-huh"

good luck and let us know when you can prove, using facts its a thought crime and magically different lol

1) ok it's a yes without any example to support your claim just because you say yes. You can commit a hate crime without any bias towards the victim identity, how? No answer just accept it

2) you suggest it's my opinion but give me no concrete counter argument. Showing that yes it is my opinion but my opinion seems to be the correct opinion.

3) there is an argument for that and I don't need to waste my time finding you any links simply the fact that I suggested it to you shows there's an argument for that. If you really want to find journalists and political thinkers that agree with me I will but your counter accusation doesn't counter my thesis it just simply says " you're wrong because I never heard of that before" it shows your childish behavior in understanding cause and affect of policy making

4) so according to your response you can charge someone with a hate crime without having to prove that individual has a predisposed bias towards the victim. Then can you tell me what the point of hate crime legislation is?
 
translation: you are incapable of understanding the answer and definitions given so you are deflection. Nobody honest, educated and objective will buy it though

the definition and my answer proves you wrong, I even bolded the parts you should focus on lol :shrug:
let me know when that fact changes

My question remains unanswered by your lack of response. How can you charge someone with a hate crime without the person being motivated by a bias towards the victims identity. I read your response and I'd like either a hypothetical explanation or an actual case please explain to me how you can effectively do this.
 
1) ok it's a yes without any example to support your claim just because you say yes.
You can commit a hate crime without any bias towards the victim identity, how? No answer just accept it

2) you suggest it's my opinion but give me no concrete counter argument. Showing that yes it is my opinion but my opinion seems to be the correct opinion.

3) there is an argument for that and I don't need to waste my time finding you any links simply the fact that I suggested it to you shows there's an argument for that.
4.)If you really want to find journalists and political thinkers that agree with me I will but your counter accusation doesn't counter my thesis it just simply says " you're wrong because I never heard of that before"
5.)it shows your childish behavior in understanding cause and affect of policy making

6) so according to your response you can charge someone with a hate crime without having to prove that individual has a predisposed bias towards the victim. Then can you tell me what the point of hate crime legislation is?

1.) no its a yes because the definition makes it that way with the words bolded to help you figure it out lol
2.) yes its true its only your OPINION if you disagree its YOUR jobe to prove it true. Its your claim, support it, but you cant
3.) translation: you dont have any facts that supports your claim
4.) why would i care about others OPINIONS when theres no facts?
I can show you whole groups of people that think bush planned 9/11 and that Obama isnt a citizen doesnt make it a fact
5.) boom! and there it is a failed personal insult.
this is the typical response of a person who has no honest, intellectual and factual path left to support thier failed claims. Very telling.
6.) wrong again, the answer of yes to your question is according to the law, not me. This fact keeps evading you but it doesnt stop being a fact.

and again, please let us know when you can prove, using facts, its a thought crime and magically different. thanks
 

I don't understand the hate crime designation. Isn't threatening to kill people already illegal?
 
My question remains unanswered by your lack of response. How can you charge someone with a hate crime without the person being motivated by a bias towards the victims identity. I read your response and I'd like either a hypothetical explanation or an actual case please explain to me how you can effectively do this.

the desperation and lies in your posts is getting very entertaining. Its not unanswered, you do not understand the answer or definition of the law/crime/ HUGE difference.

THIS is your question "Can you be charged with a hate crime without a bias towards the victims identity"
the answer is YES

the definition of hate crime per the FBI
Congress has defined a hate crime as a “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.

also remember the question you asked yesterday or earlier in post 41 that will help you too

i will get you to understand the facts sooner or later young padawan
let me know if you get it yet
 
I don't understand the hate crime designation. Isn't threatening to kill people already illegal?

correct it is
so is assault but if its found out you planned to kill but failed then you are charged with assault and attempted murder

like many many laws there are many levels or additional charges that can be added based on motivated, reasoning and scale of crime
 
1.) no its a yes because the definition makes it that way with the words bolded to help you figure it out lol
2.) yes its true its only your OPINION if you disagree its YOUR jobe to prove it true. Its your claim, support it, but you cant
3.) translation: you dont have any facts that supports your claim
4.) why would i care about others OPINIONS when theres no facts?
I can show you whole groups of people that think bush planned 9/11 and that Obama isnt a citizen doesnt make it a fact
5.) boom! and there it is a failed personal insult.
this is the typical response of a person who has no honest, intellectual and factual path left to support thier failed claims. Very telling.
6.) wrong again, the answer of yes to your question is according to the law, not me. This fact keeps evading you but it doesnt stop being a fact.

and again, please let us know when you can prove, using facts, its a thought crime and magically different. thanks

And again completely dodging my questions by simply saying your wrong your wrong.

You made the claim that you can commit a hate crime without having a bias towards the identity of the victim and I simply asked how. You have dodged my question time and time again.

The definition of bias towards "a" group would be used as if I as a white male am attacked by white supremacists because my wife is Vietnamese. That is still a bias towards my identity as someone who is married to someone Vietnamese. Now let's say I've never married or had any affair with a woman who is Vietnamese and the white supremacists still attack me, how would that be a hate crime?

I've supported it with an educated argument you have not had any capability of countering.

Translation, I'm not the only person that has said this. It's even been brought up previously in this thread

My original post on this topic was about your opinion personally, are you suggesting you have no opinion?

According to your accusation you have succeeded to many insults in this thread. In fact you've called me un American and a child before I said anything of the sort would you then admit that you have no intellectual response to support your failed claims by your criteria of insults

I would like to know what fact your referring to, and what your initial interpretation of this fact is
 
"Congress has defined a hate crime as a “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."

That law should be ruled unconstitutional because of the bolded above. Can a simple burglary or car theft become a hate crime if the perp (as far as anyone can determine) only selects victims of a single race or religion? I notice that they purposefully omitted gender, which is very curious indeed, perhaps to prevent rape (or domestic violence?) from becoming elevated to a hate crime.
 
the desperation and lies in your posts is getting very entertaining. Its not unanswered, you do not understand the answer or definition of the law/crime/ HUGE difference.

THIS is your question "Can you be charged with a hate crime without a bias towards the victims identity"
the answer is YES

the definition of hate crime per the FBI
Congress has defined a hate crime as a “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.

also remember the question you asked yesterday or earlier in post 41 that will help you too

i will get you to understand the facts sooner or later young padawan
let me know if you get it yet

Victim isn't only in regards towards violence. If someone vandalized my car I'm a victim of vandalization however it's a crime against my property. Try again
 
1.)That law should be ruled unconstitutional because of the bolded above.
2.) Can a simple burglary or car theft become a hate crime if the perp (as far as anyone can determine) only selects victims of a single race or religion?
3.) I notice that they purposefully omitted gender, which is very curious indeed, perhaps to prevent rape (or domestic violence?) from becoming elevated to a hate crime.

1.) nothing there thats unconstitutional
2.) if there are facts and evidence that make it so yes and this has happened
3.) i agree its weird not to have gender listed but im not sure its actually not taken into account, ive seen a good amount of different verbiage
if it is actually not taken into account it should be and with it on there all domestic violence and rape would not fall under that you would still need evidence of gender motivation
 
Victim isn't only in regards towards violence. If someone vandalized my car I'm a victim of vandalization however it's a crime against my property. Try again

lol no YOU try again because you still aren't getting it
 
lol no YOU try again because you still aren't getting it

You're right explain to me how someone can commit a hate crime without a bias towards the victims identity or stop talking. Don't quote me the definition give me an example because I've refuted your interpretation of the definition
 
And again completely dodging my questions by simply saying your wrong your wrong.

You made the claim that you can commit a hate crime without having a bias towards the identity of the victim and I simply asked how. You have dodged my question time and time again.

The definition of bias towards "a" group would be used as if I as a white male am attacked by white supremacists because my wife is Vietnamese. That is still a bias towards my identity as someone who is married to someone Vietnamese. Now let's say I've never married or had any affair with a woman who is Vietnamese and the white supremacists still attack me, how would that be a hate crime?

I've supported it with an educated argument you have not had any capability of countering.

Translation, I'm not the only person that has said this. It's even been brought up previously in this thread

My original post on this topic was about your opinion personally, are you suggesting you have no opinion?

According to your accusation you have succeeded to many insults in this thread. In fact you've called me un American and a child before I said anything of the sort would you then admit that you have no intellectual response to support your failed claims by your criteria of insults

I would like to know what fact your referring to, and what your initial interpretation of this fact is

still nothing huh? i love the desperations, facts are still winging and your arguments still failing
let me know when you have ONE fact that supports you . . . ONE
 
1.)You're right explain to me how someone can commit a hate crime without a bias towards the victims identity
2.) or stop talking.
3.)Don't quote me the definition give me an example because I've refuted your interpretation of the definition

1.) yes i know facts are right
2.) sorry you dont make the rules and being angry for being worng is just silly
3.) no you havent i havent give you any interpretation of the definition only the definition. In fact you have been asking me for an interpretaiton and examples and claiming i didnt do what oyu want, NOW you claim i have given an interpretation and its been refuted? :lamo
 
Back
Top Bottom