Are hate crime laws wrong?

[Rick Lee]

It really chaps my hide that this passes Constitutional muster, that some grievance groups are entitled to more equal protection under the law than others. This nutcase who just shot up the church in TN is now being called a hate-criminal. Yeah, like anyone who shoots random innocent people has something other than hate in his heart. What kind of person (lawmaker) thinks that criminals who think nothing of committing murder or egregious bodily harm will then be deterred by an additional sentence for a hate crime? I'm not sure which is more insulting - that your attacker faces a stiffer sentence if you're a member of a grievance group or that we have such stupid, pandering lawmakers. If I beat my wife, do I get slapped with a hate crime in addition to domestic violence because she and I are of different races? Seems to me I would be the victim since Han Chinese far outnumber all the white people in the world combined.

[island911]

"stupid, pandering lawmakers."

+1

btw, nice write up.

[legion]

Yes, they are absolutely wrong...unless you can figure out how to make me part of a "grievance group"...

[Dantilla]

All crime is hate crime.

[widebody911]

Originally Posted by legion

yes, They Are Absolutely Wrong...unless You Can Figure Out How To Make Me Part Of A "grievance Group"...

+1

[Rick Lee]

I justy don't get it. If I shout a racial slur at someone, I'm protected by the First Amend. But if I do it while shooting them, it escalates to a hate crime, my First Amend. right is then conditional and I could get an additional five years tacked on under federal law. Has this been tested by the SCOTUS yet?

[island911]

is it a crime to hate stupid, pandering lawmakers?

[island911]

Self loathing Suicide - do they get tagged for a hate crime?

[sammyg2]

Yep. A crime is a crime, no matter the motivation.

[lendaddy]

These laws were not enacted to actually reduce crime or foster a greater sense of justice. These laws were created by leftist politicians to give them the ability to label proper thinking conservatives as racists/homophobes.

[Jeff Higgins]

In a very recent case here in Seattle, an elderly gentleman was out watering his garden that he had planted in the middle circle of a traffic roundabout. His hose was running accross the road, and apparently he was trying to pullit back, or whatever. Some one in a car got angry because they felt they were being delayed. A young man (either getting out of a car, or passing by - I'm not clear on this) clocks this older man, knocking him to the ground, killing him.

Police knew from witnesses who the young man (who fled) was. They asked for help in finding him. Only one news source that I saw published a photo of him. The rest only listed his name. Other than that one news source, none mentioned the race of the attacker or of the victim. You have probably guessed by now that the attacker was black and the victim was white. Had the roles been reversed, I'm relatively sure the races would have been mentioned and the photo would have been widely published and aired.

I wonder if the prosecutor will add "hate crime" to the charges. Typically, when it is black (or any minority) on white violence, these charges are not added. There have been a couple of other infamous cases accross the nation recently of black on white murder or assault where they were not filed. Wonder why.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

The result of legislation that stems from knee-jerk, sensationalist, "get-your-name-in-the-papers-its-an-election-year" mentality on the part of our elected officials.

Kind of like "zero tolerance", "domestic terrorism" or similar pablum.

[HardDrive]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

It really chaps my hide that this passes Constitutional muster, that some grievance groups are entitled to more equal protection under the law than others. This nutcase who just shot up the church in TN is now being called a hate-criminal. Yeah, like anyone who shoots random innocent people has something other than hate in his heart. What kind of person (lawmaker) thinks that criminals who think nothing of committing murder or egregious bodily harm will then be deterred by an additional sentence for a hate crime? I'm not sure which is more insulting - that your attacker faces a stiffer sentence if you're a member of a grievance group or that we have such stupid, pandering lawmakers. If I beat my wife, do I get slapped with a hate crime in addition to domestic violence because she and I are of different races? Seems to me I would be the victim since Han Chinese far outnumber all the white people in the world combined.

+1

Pathetic pandering.

[Mo_Gearhead]

NEWS SOURCE COMMENT:

The FBI was assisting in case the shooting turned out be a hate crime, Police Chief Sterling Owen said. Police said they would hold a news conference Monday morning.

The church promotes progressive social work, including advocacy of women and gay rights. The Knoxville congregation also has provided sanctuary for political refugees, fed the homeless and founded a chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, according to its Web site.

__________________________

His parents made him attend church, he didn't like it.

Or perhaps he just hates God? If you can't get to the 'Big Man'...you take out his surrogates.

[azasadny]

Originally Posted by Dantilla

All crime is hate crime.

Yep!

[stomachmonkey]

C'mon, you guys are smarter than this.

Crime is crime.

When you commit crime for no other reason than the person is a particular ethnicity, sex or sexual persuasion then it is a hate crime and deserves a stiffer sentence.

It's a way to upgrade something like a simple assault charge, (which will usually result in a fine, slap on the wrist) so it has more teeth. Does it work, I don't know, but I have no issue with the concept.

Everyone can be a victim of a hate crime including AWM. It is not limited to any particular segment of society. The motivating factor of the antagonist makes the determination.

Is it any different than the distinction between Manslaughter and Murder?

MANSLAUGHTER - The unlawful killing of a human being without malice or premeditation, either express or implied; distinguished from murder, which requires malicious intent.

The distinctions between manslaughter and murder, consists in the following: In the former, though the act which occasions the death be unlawful, or likely to be attended with bodily mischief, yet the malice, either express or implied, which is the very essence of murder, is presumed to be wanting in manslaughter.

It also differs from murder in this, that there can be no accessaries before the fact, there having been no time for premeditation. Manslaugbter is voluntary, when it happens upon a sudden heat; or involuntary, when it takes place in the commission of some unlawful act.

The cases of manslaughter may be classed as follows those which take place in consequence of: 1. Provocation. 2. Mutual combat. 3. Resistance to public officers, etc. 4. Killing in the prosecution of an unlawful or wanton act. 5. Killing in the prosecution of a lawful act, improperly performed, or performed without lawful authority.

The provocation which reduces the killing from murder to manslaughter is an answer to the presumption of malice which the law raises in every case of homicide; it is therefore no answer when express malice is proved and to be available the provocation must have been reasonable and recent, for no words or slight provocation will be sufficient, and if the party has had time to cool, malice will be inferred.

In cases of mutual combat, it is generally manslaughter only when one of the parties is killed. When death ensues from duelling the rule is different, and such killing is murder.

The killing of an officer by resistance to him while acting under lawful authority is murder; but if the officer be acting under a void or illegal authority, or out of his jurisdiction, the killing is manslaughter, or excusable homicide, according to the circumstances of the case.

Killing a person while doing an act of mere wantonness, is manslaughter as, if a person throws down stones in a coal-pit, by which a man is killed, although the offender was only a trespasser.

When death ensues from the performance of a lawful act, it may, in consequence of the negligence of the offender, amount to manslaughter. For instance, if the death has been occasioned by negligent driving. Again, when death ensues, from the gross negligence of a medical or surgical practitioner, it is manslaughter.

Victim is dead either way right.

Now admittedly the application of these laws may be faulty. Blame the local DA's.

[Hugh R]

Most interracial crime is black on some other race. Yet virtually none is considered a hate crime.

[stomachmonkey]

Originally Posted by Hugh R

Most interracial crime is black on some other race. Yet virtually none is considered a hate crime.

What's the motivation for those that are not?

Car jacking, mugging, rape, murder?

Not a hate crime unless it was done specifically because the victim was ________.

And if it was simply because the victim is _______ but hate crime charges were not brought then you need to exercise your rights and vote in a DA that will apply the law correctly.

Same as if hate crime charges are brought where none are warranted.

Get yourself a new DA.

[Hugh R]

Yeah, but you're dead, you're dead, you're raped you're raped. IF the criminal did the crime on you because of your race, does it make it worse?

I guess it's sort of like the terrorist, versus criminal prosecution of people like the 9/11 bombers.

[Mo_Gearhead]

OMG ...just think of the irony, if:

It becomes a 'Hate Crime' because of his utterances he made before opening fire
and then an ACLU lawyer is provided ...that the very same church helped fund!

Who says God has no humor?