• 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!

Is the Family Research Council shooting a hate crime?

First degree murder is "willfull and premeditated". Second degree is not premeditated. Premeditation is not motivation. So you would be wrong.

3rd degree? Manslaughter?

And you would be wrong here as well.

You realize that the accused must be found with hate-group membership and/or propaganda (in their possession) targetting the victim's gender/race? Merely attacking someone because of their race/gender is NOT sufficient to convict of a hate crime. You know that?
 
Last edited:
Crime is crime, dead is dead, hurt is hurt, victims are victims.
That's not true. Hate crimes have broader potential societal consequences than regular crimes which is why they are distinguished.
 
3rd degree? Manslaughter?

Kinda irrelevant to anything said. You where wrong, just admit it.

You realize that the accused must be found with hate-group membership and/or propaganda (in their possession) targetting the victim's gender/race? Merely attacking someone because of their race/gender is NOT sufficient to convict of a hate crime. You know that?

Has nothiong to do with my reason for opposing hate crime laws. For the record, the reason I oppose them is they set up protected classes in terms of certain crimes. Not needed, not helpful.
 
So you do not think he should be prosecuted for domestic terrorism?

Hate crimes (as per actual US legal definition, not the average person's guess as to what that means) are terrorism.
 
Kinda irrelevant to anything said. You where wrong, just admit it.

It's relevant. Throwing out motivation throws out the existence of manslaughter.

Has nothiong to do with my reason for opposing hate crime laws. For the record, the reason I oppose them is they set up protected classes in terms of certain crimes. Not needed, not helpful.

You're wrong. There have been hate crime convictions for crimes again white males. There is no "protected class". It's very simple:

1. A person has official hate-group membership and/or propaganda of a hate group (which targets the victim's race/gender in the case).
2. The person committed the crime for the purpose of terrorizing the target group.

Without 1., above, there is no hate crime, regardless of 2.
 
Last edited:
So there should be no difference between manslaughter, 1st Degree or 2nd Degree then?

Redress is right about 1st and 2nd degree being more a matter of method than motivation. But obviously the difference between murder and manslaughter is necessary.
 
Hate crimes (as per actual US legal definition, not the average person's guess as to what that means) are terrorism.

That would be wrong again. 18 USC § 2331 - Definitions | LII / Legal Information Institute

(5) the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping

Significantly different from the law on hate crimes.
 
Don't make the mistake of confusing motivation with intent. Separations between 1st degree, 2nd degree, manslaughter, etc., generally have to do with intent and/or pre-meditation (forethought and planning).

There are probably a few things that could be tightened up a bit, but overall there should be a distinction in intent.
 
It's relevant. Throwing out motivation throws out the existence of manslaughter.

Motivation can be part of a determination of voluntary manslaughter vs second degree murder, however it is not the primary method to determine which a murder is.

You're wrong. There have been hate crime convictions for crimes again white males. There is no "protected class". It's very simple:

1. A person has official hate-group membership and/or propaganda of a hate group (which targets the victim's race/gender in the case).
2. The person committed the crime for the purpose of terrorizing the target group.

Without 1., above, there is no hate crime, regardless of 2.

White is a race. Race is protected under hate crime laws.
 
That would be wrong again. 18 USC § 2331 - Definitions | LII / Legal Information Institute Significantly different from the law on hate crimes.

You need to read the law on hate crimes in the US, because you ain't got a clue what it refers to. You think it creates "protected classes". This demonstrates a deep misunderstanding of the law in question.

Hate crimes are a form of terrorism. Understanding hate crime law makes this plainly clear.
 
Last edited:
That's not true. Hate crimes have broader potential societal consequences than regular crimes which is why they are distinguished.

only in the fantasy world inhabited by liberals. murder is murder, what the criminal was thinking at the time makes absolutely no difference.

BTW, you cannot legislate thought, you cannot control what people think. I would like to make all liberal thought illegal, but unfortunately thats not going to happen
 
Redress is right about 1st and 2nd degree being more a matter of method than motivation. But obviously the difference between murder and manslaughter is necessary.

It may not be based on motivation but it is based on intent which means it takes into account an individuals thought process.
 
It may not be based on motivation but it is based on intent which means it takes into account an individuals thought process.

so in your mind its worse if you kill someone because you don't like their looks than if you kill them to steal their money? is that what you are saying?
 
only in the fantasy world inhabited by liberals. murder is murder, what the criminal was thinking at the time makes absolutely no difference.

BTW, you cannot legislate thought, you cannot control what people think. I would like to make all liberal thought illegal, but unfortunately thats not going to happen

Then explain manslaughter and RICO. Hate crimes are organized crimes. They are perpetrated by both a parenting organization and an individual. The individual who takes action on account of the hate-group is held accountable for the terrorism that he or she is, in fact, committing.
 
your question has nothing to do with hate crime legislation

It does...the differences between the different types of murder are based on someone's thought process.

Did someone go out to try and murder you? Did they try to harm you yet you ended up dead? Were they just negligent and you ended up dead?

The difference between all three is just the state of mind of an individual when comitting an act. I don't see how "did they kill you because they hated your race" isn't similar.
 
so in your mind its worse if you kill someone because you don't like their looks than if you kill them to steal their money? is that what you are saying?

You, also, obviously have NO IDEA what hate crime law is in the US. No wonder you agreed with Redress.
 
You, also, obviously have NO IDEA what hate crime law is in the US. No wonder you agreed with Redress.

Oh, but I do. Under hate crime legislation the penalty for murdering someone because you hate their race is worse than murdering someone to steal their wallet. The victim is equally dead and the criminal is equally guilty, but in one case you want a more severe punishment because of what he was thinking at the time.
 
so in your mind its worse if you kill someone because you don't like their looks than if you kill them to steal their money? is that what you are saying?

I don't think one is worse than another....but I think one has implications the other doesn't. Our law isn't really broken down by A is worse than B therefore A is punished harsher. Which is worse crack or cocaine? Yet sentenceing for crack was longer (not sure if there is still a difference). Which is worse, robbing a bank or committing white collar fraud for much more than a bank heist would ever bring in.....yet who typically gets the longer penalties?
 
Last edited:
Oh, but I do. Under hate crime legislation the penalty for murdering someone because you hate their race is worse than murdering someone to steal their wallet. The victim is equally dead and the criminal is equally guilty, but in one case you want a more severe punishment because of what he was thinking at the time.

Incorrect. I could run down the street screaming "I hate black people" while shooting only black people, and avoiding whites, and that is NOT convictable as a hate crime.

When you figure out why, you'll understand the rest.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom