• 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

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

1) It is overly broad because if the crime was 99% for financial gain yet 1% racially motivated it could still be elevated to a hate crime (or not). Example "Yeah, I robbed that rich cracker".

3) If gender is taken into account then on what legal basis?
 
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

By bolding parts of the definition to support your claim that you don't have to be motivated by a bias towards the victims identity for a hate crime to occur and suggesting that because it stipulates property and suggests a bias for a race shows your interpretation of the definition.

I however state property crime still creates victims and a personal bias towards the victims identity being the motivation is what a hate crime is. You aren't arguing with me your just refusing to be wrong by being willingly ignorant and not giving me any examples that's all
 
1) It is overly broad because if the crime was 99% for financial gain yet 1% racially motivated it could still be elevated to a hate crime (or not). Example "Yeah, I robbed that rich cracker".

2) If gender is taken into account then on what legal basis?

1.) I dont think that fits, would simply calling somebody a cracker after the fact show factual evidence that the robbery was racially motivated
2.) i dont understand what you are asking
 
1.)By bolding parts of the definition to support your claim that you don't have to be motivated by a bias towards the victims identity for a hate crime to occur and suggesting that because it stipulates property and suggests a bias for a race shows your interpretation of the definition.
2.) I however state property crime still creates victims and a personal bias towards the victims identity being the motivation is what a hate crime is. You aren't arguing with me your just refusing to be wrong by being willingly ignorant and not giving me any examples that's all

1.) no thats not an "interpretation" that is highlighting what is FACTUALLY there lol

if i show you that 2 + 2 = 4 and i bold the + and 4 thats not an interpretation, wow that is silly

2.) yes i know what YOU said and it has not meaning to the definition and your statement being wrong and the answer being yes. You are arguing for what YOU something is and not what the actual definitions is because you still do not understand it. Again your mistake and your issue.

facts still win and your claim still fails
 
1.) I dont think that fits, would simply calling somebody a cracker after the fact show factual evidence that the robbery was racially motivated
2.) i dont understand what you are asking

2) The definition (that you cited) of a hate crime does not include gender so how could victim selection based on gender qualify as a hate crime?
 
2) The definition (that you cited) of a hate crime does not include gender so how could victim selection based on gender qualify as a hate crime?

1.) i didnt say it did? now im really lost lol
 
This is what you said:

oooooooooh i get it now. you were aksing what ground it would be taken under consideration if it was considered . . like i said . . i was saying i was UNSURE because ive seen different verbiage but i wasn't saying it was or was not only that i was unsure
 
in before "why are hate crime laws legal"
////

Right, because a threat on a <insert preferred protected group member here> is so much worse than a threat on, say, little ole white male me. If they carry it out on both of us, who is more dead?
 
1.) no thats not an "interpretation" that is highlighting what is FACTUALLY there lol

if i show you that 2 + 2 = 4 and i bold the + and 4 thats not an interpretation, wow that is silly

2.) yes i know what YOU said and it has not meaning to the definition and your statement being wrong and the answer being yes. You are arguing for what YOU something is and not what the actual definitions is because you still do not understand it. Again your mistake and your issue.

facts still win and your claim still fails

I'm just asking for an example of a hate crime without bias being the motivation towards the victims identity that's all. If you can't give me an example were done talking
 
I'm just asking for an example of a hate crime without bias being the motivation towards the victims identity that's all. If you can't give me an example were done talking

good lord you expose yourself more with every post showing you dont understand the law, rights or hate crime eventhough you have the defintions of it
i will spare you and teach you padawon

this is your question " "Can you be charged with a hate crime without a bias towards the victims identity"
the factual answer is YES proven by definition

you claim that it is false and the definition is wrong but its not, you cant understand the definition so you need an example

if a guy has a hatred and bigotry toward the christian religion and christians and he burns down a church based on that bigotry that is indeed a hate crime by definition. Correct?

also its a yes no question dont jump ahead with assumptions cause you will fail I will further teach you after you answer
 
Right, because a threat on a <insert preferred protected group member here> is so much worse than a threat on, say, little ole white male me. If they carry it out on both of us, who is more dead?

white males are also in the protected group :shrug:
seems you dont understand the law or what hate crimes are
 
Hate Crimes are an insult to those that are victims of crimes of equal victimhood that do not fall under Hate Crime status.

Quite so. It's about the infringement of rights, not the multitude of stupid reasons as to why one decided to infringe upon the rights of others.
 
good lord you expose yourself more with every post showing you dont understand the law, rights or hate crime eventhough you have the defintions of it
i will spare you and teach you padawon

this is your question " "Can you be charged with a hate crime without a bias towards the victims identity"
the factual answer is YES proven by definition

you claim that it is false and the definition is wrong but its not, you cant understand the definition so you need an example

if a guy has a hatred and bigotry toward the christian religion and christians and he burns down a church based on that bigotry that is indeed a hate crime by definition. Correct?

also its a yes no question dont jump ahead with assumptions cause you will fail I will further teach you after you answer

Yes it's a hate crime because he targeted the Christian church based on his motivation of being biased. The victims of that crime would obviously be members of the Christian community in that area, also specifically depending on the private ownership of the church. That crime is a crime based on the motivation of a bias towards the identity of the victim. The idea that it's a "victimless crime" is ludicrous because the argument would be made it was used to spark terror in the members of the Christian community. As well as the owners of the church would have a crime committed against them with property law, creating even further a direct victim. Please give an actual example where it's not based on the bias of the victims identity.
 
1.) Yes it's a hate crime because he targeted the Christian church based on his motivation of being biased.
.


just couldnt resist could you, you had to try and add stuff to make yourslef feel right but you are still wrong and the additional proof is coming since the defintion already proves it.
1.) correct

i wll now ignore your meaningless opinions, rantings and factually wrong assumptions and continue teaching you

next question and answer it and only it

who is the legal victim of this (with the assumption nobody died in the fire)?
 
just couldnt resist could you, you had to try and add stuff to make yourslef feel right but you are still wrong and the additional proof is coming since the defintion already proves it.
1.) correct

i wll now ignore your meaningless opinions, rantings and factually wrong assumptions and continue teaching you

next question and answer it and only it

who is the legal victim of this (with the assumption nobody died in the fire)?

Already answered, either the property owners of the church as well as it sparks terror into the Christian community multiple victims
 
Already answered, either the property owners of the church as well as it sparks terror into the Christian community multiple victims

LEGAL victim
your opinion of the christian community doesn't play in the defintions of law but it was a motivation for its invention

so now you agree that
1.) it is a hate crime and the bigotry was against the christian religion as the assailant would say
2.) the LEGAL victim is the owner

correct so far?
 
LEGAL victim
your opinion of the christian community doesn't play in the defintions of law but it was a motivation for its invention

so now you agree that
1.) it is a hate crime and the bigotry was against the christian religion as the assailant would say
2.) the LEGAL victim is the owner

correct so far?

So then tell me why is it a hate crime, is it intended to put fear into the Christian community? Sparking of that fear doesn't create victims of terror
 
So then tell me why is it a hate crime, is it intended to put fear into the Christian community? Sparking of that fear doesn't create victims of terror

dont confuse yourself and just answer the questions, stop over thinking cause it gets you in trouble and cause you to be wrong
do you agree with facts 1 and 2? yes or no
 
dont confuse yourself and just answer the questions, stop over thinking cause it gets you in trouble and cause you to be wrong
do you agree with facts 1 and 2? yes or no

No I don't agree, I believe in that case the Christian community of the area falls victim to the usage of terror by the assailant.
 

I am against hate crime laws period.A persons,race gender, financial status, position in society or what ever else should not entitle that person to more justice than your average person. Threatening someone with violence is already a crime in Utah.

Utah Criminal Defense Lawyer | Threat of Violence | Salt Lake Defense Attorney

Under Utah criminal law, a person commits the crime of "threat of violence" if the person "threatens to commit any offense involving bodily injury, death, or substantial property damage, and acts with intent to place a person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury, substantial bodily injury, or death."

snip...

Making a threat of violence is considered a class B misdemeanor under Utah criminal law. As a class B misdemeanor, making a threat of violence is punishable by up to 180 days in jail and nearly $2,000 in fines and surcharge.
 
I am against hate crime laws period.A persons,race gender, financial status, position in society or what ever else should not entitle that person to more justice than your average person.

you are free to not support them, i do :shurg:

you statement doesnt make sense though does the avg person not have a race or gender?
 
you are free to not support them, i do :shurg:

you statement doesnt make sense though does the avg person not have a race or gender?
Your average person is who makes a threat of violence against someone else is not going to be charged with hate crime laws.
 
No I don't agree, I believe in that case the Christian community of the area falls victim to the usage of terror by the assailant.

and that is 100% factually false based on legality.
Its an OPINION you are allowed to have but we are talkign facts and laws so your opinion is meaningless.
LEGALLY what could the christian community do? could they press charges based on them being chrisitian? nope

they are factually not the victiums

anyway moing on from your mistake

its fact its a hate crime
its a fact the owner is a victium

your false and proven wrong claim is there can only be a hate crime if there is a biased towards the victim's identity

well what if the owner was mark zuckerberg? an atheist

or better yet a corporation, say facebook owned it and the property, an atheist corporation.

well the IDENTITY of the victim is atheist and therefore the crime would not be against the victim's identity but it would still be a hate crime by definition.
Like i said facts, laws and the crims definition all prove you wrong and you have nothign on your side besides "nu-huh", this fact wont change

you're welcome
facts win again
 
Your average person is who makes a threat of violence against someone else is not going to be charged with hate crime laws.

you didnt answer the question
and as far as what you just said above that is only true if they dont break hate crime laws

EVERY person to break hate crime laws is an average person based on gender, race etc
 
Back
Top Bottom