• 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!

Fatal Sucker Punch - Will the Justice Dept Investagate? Nope

ttwtt78640 said:
The sentence is the biggest part of the verdict's impact - two years locked up for an assault conviction is very different than two years probation for an assault conviction. How can you assert that assault is assault regardless of the motive and that variable sentences for that same crime are justified?
Click to expand...

You missed the point. Convict them of their crime, whatever that may be, then consider the reasons they committed their crime when sentencing, too deep for ya, come on I know you can get it.
 
legalimmigrant said:
...at my expense, I assume.

The best therapy that works and costs nothing is what they do in Singapore. Just ask Michael P. Fay. Based on the available records, Michael never again vandalized anything in that country.

He did a lot of **** in the US upon his return, though, but not in Singapore.

Isn't it funny how it works?
Click to expand...

Either way society ends up dealing with it, so you would rather deal with over ad over than maybe change the behavior?

Oh, but I do agree that a few public canings would do wonders.
 
Casper said:
You missed the point. Convict them of their crime, whatever that may be, then consider the reasons they committed their crime when sentencing, too deep for ya, come on I know you can get it.
Click to expand...

That is not the way that "the system" works - the vast majority of crimes are dealt with via plea deals where the "eventual" (often reduced) charge and sentence is known and agreed upon in advance of the trial/conviction. Thus motive (as well as perp/victim class) is very important in that entire process.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That is not the way that "the system" works - the vast majority of crimes are dealt with via plea deals where the "eventual" (often reduced) charge and sentence is known and agreed upon in advance of the trial/conviction. Thus motive (as well as perp/victim class) is very important in that entire process.
Click to expand...
Motive is important, but plea deals are built on conviction rates and not justice, there should be far fewer of them as far as I am concerned.
 
chuckiechan said:
It depends on the plea bargain. Probably four years, out in two. Democrats don't like to put people in jail.
Click to expand...

:lamo the **** right-wingers convince themselves of never ceases to amuse
 
Brewdog said:
Suspect in fatal Queens assault bragged about attack in public Facebook posts* | Daily Mail Online
Suspect in fatal Queens sucker-punch that was captured on CCTV bragged about attack in public Facebook posts

What are the odds the US Justice Department and Loretta Lynch will charge him with a hate crime?

Zero chance.
Click to expand...

Apparently you aren't familiar with what hate crimes are. Hate crimes are crimes committed against people because of their race, religion, ethnicity, or other factors that they were born with. Was this crime committed BECAUSE of what the victim was born as? Looking at the article, there seems to be precisely ZERO racial/ethnic/religious motivation...but just some idiot trying to prove how macho he is to his wife after the maybe-real/maybe-imagined bump against her by the victim. There's absolutely NO probable cause to charge the guy with a hate crime.

But because the guy who committed the crime is black, and the victim was white, you apparently assumed that it MUST be a hate crime, and if it wasn't prosecuted as such, well, ha-RUMPH, that's somehow proof that the whole Obama administration and the feds are somehow against white people!!!! Fear of a Black Planet, indeed!

Dude. When the white guy walked into a black church out east and killed nine blacks BECAUSE they were black, THAT was by definition a hate crime. And if you'd actually LISTEN to what we lefties say - instead of ASSUMING that we're so doggone one-sided against whites ('cause that's what Breitbart and Daily Caller want you to believe) - you'd find out that we DO hold every race/religion/ethnicity responsible when it comes to hate crimes.

Next time, try realizing that just as MOST conservatives are hard-working, good-hearted, well-meaning people, MOST liberals are also hard-working, good-hearted, well-meaning people. MOST Americans are, regardless of political stripe. Bear that in mind the next time you hear right-wing pundits try to paint all the liberals as lazy, unpatriotic, greedy America-haters, et cetera, ad nauseum.
 
Casper said:
Motive is important, but plea deals are built on conviction rates and not justice, there should be far fewer of them as far as I am concerned.
Click to expand...

There should be no plea deals in the capital offense trials. Any young guy facing the DP or LWOP while innocent would be an idiot not to take 25 if offered.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Apparently you aren't familiar with what hate crimes are. Hate crimes are crimes committed against people because of their race, religion, ethnicity, or other factors that they were born with. Was this crime committed BECAUSE of what the victim was born as? Looking at the article, there seems to be precisely ZERO racial/ethnic/religious motivation...but just some idiot trying to prove how macho he is to his wife after the maybe-real/maybe-imagined bump against her by the victim. There's absolutely NO probable cause to charge the guy with a hate crime.

But because the guy who committed the crime is black, and the victim was white, you apparently assumed that it MUST be a hate crime, and if it wasn't prosecuted as such, well, ha-RUMPH, that's somehow proof that the whole Obama administration and the feds are somehow against white people!!!! Fear of a Black Planet, indeed!

Dude. When the white guy walked into a black church out east and killed nine blacks BECAUSE they were black, THAT was by definition a hate crime. And if you'd actually LISTEN to what we lefties say - instead of ASSUMING that we're so doggone one-sided against whites ('cause that's what Breitbart and Daily Caller want you to believe) - you'd find out that we DO hold every race/religion/ethnicity responsible when it comes to hate crimes.

Next time, try realizing that just as MOST conservatives are hard-working, good-hearted, well-meaning people, MOST liberals are also hard-working, good-hearted, well-meaning people. MOST Americans are, regardless of political stripe. Bear that in mind the next time you hear right-wing pundits try to paint all the liberals as lazy, unpatriotic, greedy America-haters, et cetera, ad nauseum.
Click to expand...

Yes, we assumed that because that Negro had plenty of other Negroes to attack to impress his gf. Yet, he chose a white guy because it was an easier target - like not packing - and with less risk of getting his skull broken by the victim's 'hood buddies.

That makes this, by definition, a race-based crime. Hence, hate crime.
 
legalimmigrant said:
There should be no plea deals in the capital offense trials. Any young guy facing the DP or LWOP while innocent would be an idiot not to take 25 if offered.
Click to expand...

Depends on how weak the prosecutors case is, clearly Zimmerman was an idiot because he went to jury and was acquitted. Same as Luis Alvarez, and Gail Gerlach up here in WA

If the prosecution case is weak it doesn't matter how good the plea is, take it to trial. The real problem is that so many criminal defendants are indigent and the state doesn't pay for decent lawyers and limits how much public defenders can bill for expert witnesses and independent investigation, and the result is a poor defendant will not have the resources to put a credible defense before a jury
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Apparently you aren't familiar with what hate crimes are. Hate crimes are crimes committed against people because of their race, religion, ethnicity, or other factors that they were born with. Was this crime committed BECAUSE of what the victim was born as? Looking at the article, there seems to be precisely ZERO racial/ethnic/religious motivation...but just some idiot trying to prove how macho he is to his wife after the maybe-real/maybe-imagined bump against her by the victim. There's absolutely NO probable cause to charge the guy with a hate crime.

But because the guy who committed the crime is black, and the victim was white, you apparently assumed that it MUST be a hate crime, and if it wasn't prosecuted as such, well, ha-RUMPH, that's somehow proof that the whole Obama administration and the feds are somehow against white people!!!! Fear of a Black Planet, indeed!

Dude. When the white guy walked into a black church out east and killed nine blacks BECAUSE they were black, THAT was by definition a hate crime. And if you'd actually LISTEN to what we lefties say - instead of ASSUMING that we're so doggone one-sided against whites ('cause that's what Breitbart and Daily Caller want you to believe) - you'd find out that we DO hold every race/religion/ethnicity responsible when it comes to hate crimes.

Next time, try realizing that just as MOST conservatives are hard-working, good-hearted, well-meaning people, MOST liberals are also hard-working, good-hearted, well-meaning people. MOST Americans are, regardless of political stripe. Bear that in mind the next time you hear right-wing pundits try to paint all the liberals as lazy, unpatriotic, greedy America-haters, et cetera, ad nauseum.
Click to expand...

He's mostly guilty of having no appropriate social mores, combined with a lack of impulse control. Judging from his woman's reaction, she's learned to ignore his bad behavior knowing she could be next.
 
chuckiechan said:
He's mostly guilty of having no appropriate social mores, combined with a lack of impulse control. Judging from his woman's reaction, she's learned to ignore his bad behavior knowing she could be next.
Click to expand...

I would agree with that. I make no excuses for the guy - put him on trial, and if he's found guilty, let him feel the full weight of the law. My only point is that the author of the OP needs to get a clue as to what a hate crime is...and what a hate crime ain't.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
I would agree with that. I make no excuses for the guy - put him on trial, and if he's found guilty, let him feel the full weight of the law. My only point is that the author of the OP needs to get a clue as to what a hate crime is...and what a hate crime ain't.
Click to expand...

It appears that the OP author views a "hate crime" as any crime (allegedly) committed by a person that they hate. ;)
 
Brewdog said:
Suspect in fatal Queens assault bragged about attack in public Facebook posts* | Daily Mail Online
Suspect in fatal Queens sucker-punch that was captured on CCTV bragged about attack in public Facebook posts

What are the odds the US Justice Department and Loretta Lynch will charge him with a hate crime?

Zero chance.
Click to expand...

Hate crime? There' s no evidence to charge anybody with a hate crime so yes I agree ZERO chance because that would be stupid. As for the guy that committed the assault, I hope they find him! From the info we have and the video it seems like a pretty clear case of second degree assault and or possible second degree manslaughter.
 
Brewdog said:
Suspect in fatal Queens assault bragged about attack in public Facebook posts* | Daily Mail Online
Suspect in fatal Queens sucker-punch that was captured on CCTV bragged about attack in public Facebook posts

What are the odds the US Justice Department and Loretta Lynch will charge him with a hate crime?

Zero chance.
Click to expand...

I just read this Morning that they are thinking about charging Facebook management including Zuckerberg in Germany as accessory in their equivalent of hate crime.
 
Brewdog said:
Suspect in fatal Queens assault bragged about attack in public Facebook posts* | Daily Mail Online
Suspect in fatal Queens sucker-punch that was captured on CCTV bragged about attack in public Facebook posts

What are the odds the US Justice Department and Loretta Lynch will charge him with a hate crime?

Zero chance.
Click to expand...
Brush up on the policies
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...aking-news-non-msm-guidelines-10-29-09-a.html
Here are the Rules and Guidelines to help you properly use the *Breaking News* forum:

I - All Forum Rules apply here: DP Forum Rules (Forum Rules)

II - All Opening Post threads posted in *BN* must have:

• Static link to an article from a bona-fide news organization.
• Dateline within the past 48 hours.
• Exact same title as the cited article.
• Quoted short excerpts from the article.
• Your own unique content to spur discussion.
Click to expand...
 
Brewdog said:
But if it were the other way around, the Justice Department would be chomping at the bit to get him.

I don't agree with hate crime laws at all. A crime of violence is a crime of violence. You shouldn't be legislating thought.

But if we're going to have two standards, it's worth noting the disparity.
Click to expand...

They are not legislating thought. They are legislating and protecting minorities that are subject to more violent acts due to race, religion, sexual orientation.
 
Fenton said:
Has this piece of **** been captured yet ??
Click to expand...

I don't know. But they'll get him. Hopefully before he hurts anyone else. He's seemingly a maniac, so I hope the police are ok when they arrest him.

Unless he's wealthy, he'll have to come out at some point. I'm pretty sure they're tracking his ATM and credit cards and cell phone.
 
Brewdog said:
I don't know. But they'll get him. Hopefully before he hurts anyone else. He's seemingly a maniac, so I hope the police are ok when they arrest him.

Unless he's wealthy, he'll have to come out at some point. I'm pretty sure they're tracking his ATM and credit cards and cell phone.
Click to expand...

Why do you think he should be charged with a hate crime?
 
year2late said:
Why do you think he should be charged with a hate crime?
Click to expand...

Under the law, if I were the prosecutor, I wouldn't. But my point was to show the hypocrisy of the government about these matters. If it were the other way around, this administration would have sent in the FBI to investigate because otherwise there would be riots and looting in the streets.

As I said somewhere above, I don't like hate crime legislation at all. I think it regulates thought. The law should regulate actions.
 
Brewdog said:
Under the law, if I were the prosecutor, I wouldn't. But my point was to show the hypocrisy of the government about these matters. If it were the other way around, this administration would have sent in the FBI to investigate because otherwise there would be riots and looting in the streets.

As I said somewhere above, I don't like hate crime legislation at all. I think it regulates thought. The law should regulate actions.
Click to expand...

OK, how do you see this case as similar to other hate crimes. Do you understand the concept (even if you do not agree with it?)

Because it doesn't look like you even understand the concept.
 
year2late said:
OK, how do you see this case as similar to other hate crimes. Do you understand the concept (even if you do not agree with it?)

Because it doesn't look like you even understand the concept.
Click to expand...

Yes, it means that if I hate you and kill you because you're sleeping with my wife, then there's one set of sentence guidelines the courts will use. If I hate you because you're a protected class, then the courts will use an enhanced sentence where I will go to prison longer because of the reason that I hated you. I think that's a bit absurd.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom