• 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?

Actually, under the definition I gave, I am not against classifying rape as a hate crime.

Like I said, I only used that as an example of how ignorant this legislation is. It is sufficient to convict the perpetrator of RAPE. The end result of the crime is the same regardless of the motive.
 
It was apparently motivated by hatred over their political and social views, so it could be construed as a hate crime.... except I don't believe in "hate crimes legislation". Crime is crime. Charge the shooter with attempted murder and be done with it.

I agree...hate laws charge individuals for their intent...when they have the crime theyve already committed in front of them
 
It was apparently motivated by hatred over their political and social views, so it could be construed as a hate crime.... except I don't believe in "hate crimes legislation". Crime is crime. Charge the shooter with attempted murder and be done with it.


To simply apply a basic reasoning to a charge is to ignore who the FRC are and why the shooter was there in the first place. It must be investigated and charged if this was indeed a hate crime, as a hate crime carries a stiffer sentence and the FNC falls within that class which that crime laws are deemed to protect.

The "Family Research Council (FRC) has advanced faith, family and freedom in public policy and the culture from a Christian worldview. The shooter told the guard, "I don't like your politics" before firing the shot."

The problem is FNC "politics" is directly related to their religious beliefs. In fact, "FRC's team of seasoned experts promotes these core values through policy research, public education on Capitol Hill and in the media, and grassroots mobilization. We review legislation, meet with policymakers, publish books and pamphlets, build coalitions, testify before Congress, and maintain a powerful presence online and in the print and broadcast media. Through our outreach to pastors, we equip churches to transform the culture."

The FRC "politics" are inextricably intertwined with their "Christian" religious views and values this is what motivated the shooter and why he sought out this group as a target.

About FRC
 
To simply apply a basic reasoning to a charge is to ignore who the FRC are and why the shooter was there in the first place. It must be investigated and charged if this was indeed a hate crime, as a hate crime carries a stiffer sentence and the FNC falls within that class which that crime laws are deemed to protect.

The "Family Research Council (FRC) has advanced faith, family and freedom in public policy and the culture from a Christian worldview. The shooter told the guard, "I don't like your politics" before firing the shot."

The problem is FNC "politics" is directly related to their religious beliefs. In fact, "FRC's team of seasoned experts promotes these core values through policy research, public education on Capitol Hill and in the media, and grassroots mobilization. We review legislation, meet with policymakers, publish books and pamphlets, build coalitions, testify before Congress, and maintain a powerful presence online and in the print and broadcast media. Through our outreach to pastors, we equip churches to transform the culture."

The FRC "politics" are inextricably intertwined with their "Christian" religious views and values this is what motivated the shooter and why he sought out this group as a target.

About FRC

As I said, it could be construed as a hate crime.

However, I don't believe in hate crimes legislation. For one I think it violates the "equal protection" clause, creating "special protected groups" and extra punishment for targeting them.

Most crimes are motivated by either hate or greed. It is reasonably safe to say that almost all cases of murder or attempted murder are motivated by hate in some fashion. Punish the crime, not the "thought".
 
As I said, it could be construed as a hate crime.

However, I don't believe in hate crimes legislation. For one I think it violates the "equal protection" clause, creating "special protected groups" and extra punishment for targeting them.

Most crimes are motivated by either hate or greed. It is reasonably safe to say that almost all cases of murder or attempted murder are motivated by hate in some fashion. Punish the crime, not the "thought".

There is a difference between "crimes are motivated by either hate or greed" which, according to your inference, are crimes regarding society in general and crimes against groups motivated by hatred of their religion, sex, race etc etc. A thought can never be punished, but an act which manifests that thought and results in a crime should be punished in that special classification of "Hate Crime". The whole idea a "thought" is punishable as a crime is an obfuscation of what a hate crime is.
 
One of the differences between a hate crime and, say, a crime of passion is that the former targets an entire community as well as being random in nature. Crimes of passion are dependent upon an established relationship between the perp and victim, whereas hate crimes are not. As such, the decisions any individual makes will determine the liklihood of their being a victim of a crime of passion , but not a hate crime.
 
Cmakaioz, I have a question for you. Do you think white people or Christians can be victims of hate crimes?
 
Cmakaioz, I have a question for you. Do you think white people or Christians can be victims of hate crimes?
Sure, look at the civil war where there was Plenty of hate for everybody; including the long, the short, and the tall Everbody hates something. Hate has no boundries.
 
Last edited:
That is not what you said., You said legislation should not be made based on what "might or could" happen. Drunk driving laws are based on what might or could happen when some one drives drunk.
But they're still applied equally. There is no special category for happy drunks vs a-hole drunks. Drunk is drunk.
 
Yes, they have committed a crime and shown that they are dangerous, but they are being punished for the crime. Sentencing is when they decide the length of time the person will do because of the level of their crime. If you were right, there would be no such thing as parole because any person released could be a potential danger to the community. There is no way to know for sure. Nobody is punished because of what they MIGHT do. They are punished because they have committed a crime.
You don't understand the justice system. The justice system is, in part, founded on the notion that society needs to be protected from what criminals might or could do.
 
Cmakaioz, I have a question for you. Do you think white people or Christians can be victims of hate crimes?

You asked Cmakaioz, but I'll answer this too: No. A majority-power group cannot be the target of a hate crime, because by definition, a hate crime targets an oppressed group, NOT an individual. Otherwise, it is a crime against an individual only and should be prosecuted as such.
 
You asked Cmakaioz, but I'll answer this too: No. A majority-power group cannot be the target of a hate crime, because by definition, a hate crime targets an oppressed group, NOT an individual. Otherwise, it is a crime against an individual only and should be prosecuted as such.
That's simply politically correct absurdity.
 
That's simply politically correct absurdity.

It'd be interesting to see if you would say this if you were gay, or black, or nonchristian, etc.
 
That's simply politically correct absurdity.

Sure, if there's a group that specifically targets whites or Christians, then I would label it a hate group.
 
You asked Cmakaioz, but I'll answer this too: No. A majority-power group cannot be the target of a hate crime, because by definition, a hate crime targets an oppressed group, NOT an individual. Otherwise, it is a crime against an individual only and should be prosecuted as such.

Yes whites can be targets of "hate crimes". For example, "A black jail inmate has been booked with a hate crime after allegedly saying he would squirt human waste on every white inmate in his cellblock, and then doing so. All seven white inmates — but none of the three African-American inmates in the dorm with them — were squirted with urine and feces from a shampoo bottle, said Maj. Malcolm Wolfe of the Terrebonne Parish Sheriff's Office."

Black inmate accused of hate crime against whites - SFGate
 
There is a difference between "crimes are motivated by either hate or greed" which, according to your inference, are crimes regarding society in general and crimes against groups motivated by hatred of their religion, sex, race etc etc. A thought can never be punished, but an act which manifests that thought and results in a crime should be punished in that special classification of "Hate Crime". The whole idea a "thought" is punishable as a crime is an obfuscation of what a hate crime is.

If a crime carries a heavier punishment than it otherwise would, because it is presumed to have been motivated by a thought that, in itself wouldn't have been a crime, then this does indeed have the effect of criminalizing the thought.
 
If a crime carries a heavier punishment than it otherwise would, because it is presumed to have been motivated by a thought that, in itself wouldn't have been a crime, then this does indeed have the effect of criminalizing the thought.

No it does not.....

The intent which is called mens rea is the guilty mind....... that alone is not punishable.....

It must accompanied by the "act" or actus reus...without which there is no crime.

In other words an individual can hate a group based on race, religion etc etc all they want and do so for the rest of their lives with impunity. The moment they act and commit a crime against the group they hate then there is a manifestation of the hate and then it is punishable as a hate crime.
 
In other words an individual can hate a group based on race, religion etc etc all they want and do so for the rest of their lives with impunity. The moment they act and commit a crime against the group they hate then there is a manifestation of the hate and then it is punishable as a hate crime.

To be convicted of a hate crime, one must be a member of or possess hate-group propaganda. And, of course, there cannot be other significant motives in the crime.

So, one could be a hardcore racist and kill someone (because they are black) while screaming 'I hate black people', but if one takes their wallet and doesn't have any memberships/propaganda (in ones possession)... no hate crime conviction.
 
Last edited:
If the Federal Government is "struggling to determine if it's a hate crime," or even if the Federal Government is totally silent on something, than it's probably a hate crime by the left.
 
The simple FACT of the matter is that you and others cannot read minds. THAT is the ONLY FACT here.

Incorrect. As you have failed to muster even a rudimentary level of substance...to the bin with you. I can't spend calories on someone who insists on denying not only readily accessible facts, but also refuses to acknowledge the difference between fact and opinion.

My post above was repetitive because you keep repeating the same mistake of completely ignoring what's in front of you. I suspect I could point out to you a thousand more times that HCE's aren't based upon policing thought, and you'd still go on your merry way pretending otherwise.

To the bin with you.
 
It was apparently motivated by hatred over their political and social views, so it could be construed as a hate crime....

Actually, that's what would PREVENT it from carrying a hate crime enhancement. Those-who-hold-a-certain-political-stance is NOT a protected class.

For the gazillionth time, folks:

Hate crime enhancements can't just be tacked on, willy-nilly, to any criminal act deemed to have been committed out of "hating something," i.e.:

This guy hated that other guy's tie and punched him for having lousy taste. Hate crime enhancement? NO.

There are three absolute minimum criteria involved:
1) Conviction of a criminal act.
2) Demonstration -- through evidence not supposition -- that the offender bears, or bore at the time of the crime, a specific animus towards the victim(s) on the basis of the victim's perceived membership in a protected class
3) Demonstration -- through evidence not supposition -- that #1 was done out of a motivation based upon #2.

If ANY of the above 3 criteria are not demonstrated to the satisfaction of the court, then there's no HCE.

except I don't believe in "hate crimes legislation". Crime is crime. Charge the shooter with attempted murder and be done with it.

Based upon your post, you don't understand hate crime legislation...so you are opposing what you have mistaken HCE's to be. You may indeed still oppose HCE's after grasping what they actually are, but based upon your post you do not (yet) have that understanding.
 
Back
Top Bottom