• 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?

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.

the differences between 1st and 2nd degree murder are based on circumstances of the crime, not the thoughts of the murderer.

If a woman kills her husband because she hates him, is that a hate crime? thats the problem with this, the definitions are all over the place.
 

It is a bias motivated crime.So yes it is a hate crime.I believe justice should be fair and that attempted murderer should be charged with a hate crime.

I do believe that hate crime laws should be struck down.1st degree murder should be just 1st degree of murder, attempted murder should be just attempted murder,rape should be just rape and so on.If you are beaten up,stabbed,shot,raped,robbed or dead I do not think its going to make you feel any better if the assailant doesn't hate you and you are just as beaten up,shot,raped,stabbed,robbed or dead as the guy whose assailant hates him.
 
Incorrect. I could run down the street screaming "I hate black people" while shooting only black people and that is NOT convictable as a hate crime.

When you figure out why, you'll understand the rest.

So the Zimmerman/Martin case is not a hate crime? I thought Sharpton and Jackson said it was.
 
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.
1) Kill someone with pre-meditation because he slept with your wife.
2) Kill someone with pre-meditation because they are something you don't like (aka "hate" crimes).
3) Kill someone in the course of a planned robbery. The victim may be random, and it may not be personal against that specific individual, but the crime is still pre-meditated.

All three would/should qualify as 1st degree murder. The thought process behind each one is irrelevant. The fact that it was intended to happen IS relevant, and thus qualifies it for the highest degree of legally allowable punishment.
 
the guy whose assailant hates him.

That's not what it's about. See (1.) in my post above (#34).
 
Last edited:
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?

what implications? that someone else will do it? that someone's feelings were hurt because a murderer did not like their race?

You liberals need to move out of fantasy land and spend some time in the real world.
 
Hate crime legislation = thought control = big brother and the thought police. maybe Orwell was right. we have lost all common sense in this country.
 
1st Degree requires premiditation which has everything to do with thought process.

Arguing the 1st and 2nd distinction is not as useful as arguing the manslaughter distinction. But it doesn't matter, because people don't know what a hate crime conviction in the US requires and therefore they have no idea what it's really about.
 
It is a bias motivated crime.So yes it is a hate crime.I believe justice should be fair and that attempted murderer should be charged with a hate crime.

I do believe that hate crime laws should be struck down.1st degree murder should be just 1st degree of murder, attempted murder should be just attempted murder,rape should be just rape and so on.If you are beaten up,stabbed,shot,raped,robbed or dead I do not think its going to make you feel any better if the assailant doesn't hate you and you are just as beaten up,shot,raped,stabbed,robbed or dead as the guy whose assailant hates him.
I've never understood the legal distinction between murder and attempted murder. To me, this says you get a partial free-pass for being incompetent. To me, if you planned and meant and tried to kill them, success or failure should be irrelevant.
 
Yes, but not whether he loves or hates the victim.

That doesn't really matter. But you continue to ignore reality.
 
what implications? that someone else will do it? that someone's feelings were hurt because a murderer did not like their race?

You liberals need to move out of fantasy land and spend some time in the real world.

You do understand that setting fire to a mass transportation vehicle (even empty) is punished differently than just regular arson right? That one is punished as terrorism the other arson. That one is seen as a threat to society the other is a crazy person.
 
I don't like the concept of hate crimes, but it appears that he did this directly in relation to the beliefs held by the Family Research Council. I would say his main motive was hate over their beliefs and not a murderous intent for an individual.
 
You do understand that setting fire to a mass transportation vehicle (even empty) is punished differently than just regular arson right? That one is punished as terrorism the other arson. That one is seen as a threat to society the other is a crazy person.

yes, but what does that have to do with hate crimes?
 
1) Kill someone with pre-meditation because he slept with your wife.
2) Kill someone with pre-meditation because they are something you don't like (aka "hate" crimes).
3) Kill someone in the course of a planned robbery. The victim may be random, and it may not be personal against that specific individual, but the crime is still pre-meditated.

All three would/should qualify as 1st degree murder. The thought process behind each one is irrelevant. The fact that it was intended to happen IS relevant, and thus qualifies it for the highest degree of legally allowable punishment.

So you wouldn't call the difference between trying to injure someone or kill someone a thought process?
 
Look, people:


When someone commits a crime for the purpose of striking fear into a group, and that person is a member/possesser/purveyor of hate-group propaganda, then the crime has much more broad implications for society. The person is not merely committing a crime against a race or gender they don't like. The person is committing a crime for the express purpose of creating terror, and is doing so via organized propaganda.


Those two things in bold? REQUIREMENTS for a hate crime conviction in the US. If BOTH requirements are not met, it is NOT a hate crime under US law.
 
Last edited:
That doesn't really matter. But you continue to ignore reality.

I am grounded in reality, its you who is living in fantasy. you cannot legislate morals or thoughts, and that is what you are trying to do.

the liberal idea is: if you don't think as I do, I am going to punish you.
 
yes, but what does that have to do with hate crimes?

Everything. I've quoted the DOJ in regards to hate crimes. Both hate crimes and terrorism have larger implications than the murder that took place.

Of all crimes, hate crimes are most likely to create or exacerbate tensions, which can trigger larger community-wide racial conflict, civil disturbances, and even riots. Hate crimes put cities and towns at-risk of serious social and economic consequences. The immediate costs of racial conflicts and civil disturbances are police, fire, and medical personnel overtime, injury or death, business and residential property loss, and damage to vehicles and equipment. Long-term recovery is hindered by a decline in property values, which results in lower tax revenues, scarcity of funds for rebuilding, and increased insurance rates. Businesses and residents abandon these neighborhoods, leaving empty buildings to attract crime, and the quality of schools decline due to the loss of tax revenue. A municipality may have no choice but to cut services or raise taxes or leave the area in its post-riot condition until market forces of supply and demand rebuild the area."
 
How can you determine if there is hate in someone's heart? Unless there is CLEAR evidence of hate (such as racial slurs, things like that), I don't see how anyone can assume to know how someone else feels. That is just one reason why I don't feel comfortable with hate crime legislation.
 
Look, people:


When someone commits a crime for the purpose of striking fear into a group, and that person is a member/possesser/purveyor of hate-group propaganda, then the crime has much more broad implications for society. The person is not merely committing a crime against a race or gender they don't like. The person is committing a crime for the express purpose of creating terror, and is doing so via organized propaganda.


Those two things in bold? REQUIREMENTS for a hate crime conviction.

you defined terrorism. why do we need another definition?
 
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

Using this argument he cannot be charged as a domestic terrorist.
 
the differences between 1st and 2nd degree murder are based on circumstances of the crime, not the thoughts of the murderer.

If a woman kills her husband because she hates him, is that a hate crime?

No. Absolutely, unambiguously...no.

Why? Because (as already explained...here we go AGAIN) the situation you have described, as you have described it, doesn't come anywhere close to the legal grounds for pursuing an HCE in sentencing.

thats the problem with this, the definitions are all over the place.

The definitions are NOT all over the place. They are clear and explicit. They are PRETENDED to be otherwise in order to strawman the general case for HCE's. The problem is not unclear definitions, but ignorance and intellectual dishonesty in misrepresenting the definitions.

It is rare for an HCE to even be pursued by a prosecutor, because the evidentiary burden is much heavier than most people imagine. An HCE typically would NOT obtain, for example, for someone shouting slurs in the middle of an assault. The prosecutor would typically have to show -- through evidence, not supposition -- that the offender(s) had a demonstrated history of specific animus against the victim which went well beyond the heat of the moment in the attack.

Yes, but not whether he loves or hates the victim.

As above, the relevant distinction in cases of possible HCE's is not whether or not the offender is shown to have hated the victim generally, but whether or not that hatred was part of some larger concretely demonstrated pattern of specific animus for members of a protected class.

Again: we may argue endlessly about HCE's, but at the very least we should do so based upon what HCE's actually are and how they actually operate, not upon strawmen.
 
Back
Top Bottom