Egypt sentences 5 men for homosexuality - Christians at fault

[The Night Owl]

Wrong. You think you can kill someone without hate? ALL murders are based on hate. Hate-crime legislation is an emotionally-driven crock of shit perpetrated onto the American populace by liberals wanting to stay in power. Murder is ******* murder is ******* murder.

Huh? What gives you the idea that all murders are the result of hate? Some murders are committed purely for financial gain.

[Chris_]

Wrong. You think you can kill someone without hate? ALL murders are based on hate. Hate-crime legislation is an emotionally-driven crock of shit perpetrated onto the American populace by liberals wanting to stay in power. Murder is ******* murder is ******* murder.

Huh? What gives you the idea that all murders are the result of hate? Some murders are committed purely for financial gain.

So, we are back to the State's onus to read minds.

You need to keep up to your backpedaling.

[The Night Owl]

So, define "terrorizing a segment of the population."  Should all gangs be prosecuted for hate crimes?  They terrorize an entire segment of their communities.

If a gang commits a crime which is found to have been committed with the intent to terrorize or harrass more than just the primary victims, then of course the crime should be treated as a hate crime.

And I guess that means you agree that a single act, by your (rather cute) definitions, can never be a Hare Crime, since it cannot (again by definition) be perpetrated against antire segment of the population.

Huh? I don't understand what you're saying.

[Rebel]

Huh? I'm not arguing that courts should attempt to read minds. What I'm arguing is that if evidence is found that a criminal act was committed with the intent of terrorizing a segment of the population, then the criminal who committed the act should be punished for it and for terrorizing the population. Two crimes... two punishments.

So, murder is already illegal. You're saying it should be illegal to hate someone or some group now? Yes, you are bartering in thought crimes.

[Rebel]

If evidence is found that the VA snipers targeted whites with the intent of terrorizing whites, then their crimes should be prosecuted as hate crimes.

...but they weren't. I don't think there's been a black person to date convicted of hate crimes legislation.

They should be found guilty of murder and sentenced to die. All the other bullshit isn't necessary and only intended to confuse the DumbMasses.

[Rebel]

Huh? What gives you the idea that all murders are the result of hate? Some murders are committed purely for financial gain.

Does it make the victim any less dead?

[delilahmused]

So, define "terrorizing a segment of the population."  Should all gangs be prosecuted for hate crimes?  They terrorize an entire segment of their communities.

If a gang commits a crime which is found to have been committed with the intent to terrorize or harrass more than just the primary victims, then of course the crime should be treated as a hate crime.

And I guess that means you agree that a single act, by your (rather cute) definitions, can never be a Hare Crime, since it cannot (again by definition) be perpetrated against antire segment of the population.

Huh? I don't understand what you're saying.

So what are you going to use as "proof" of intent? I'm serious...running into a bar saying "black guys suck!" and letting loose with a spray of gunfire MIGHT (by whatever definition YOU'VE constructed)...or maybe he's a distraught gay man whose black lover just left him and doesn't really hate blacks at all. Or maybe he is a secret racist and his boyfriend left him because he was tired of feeling like he was living with Robert Byrd's son. How do we "know"?

Cindie

[Chris_]

So, define "terrorizing a segment of the population."  Should all gangs be prosecuted for hate crimes?  They terrorize an entire segment of their communities.

If a gang commits a crime which is found to have been committed with the intent to terrorize or harrass more than just the primary victims, then of course the crime should be treated as a hate crime.

So Black on Black crime is a Hate Crime?  And, ow that we know it isn't racial, how does this change the underlying act?

And I guess that means you agree that a single act, by your (rather cute) definitions, can never be a Hare Crime, since it cannot (again by definition) be perpetrated against antire segment of the population.

Huh? I don't understand what you're saying.

Well, I mis-spelled Hare-crimes (which we leave for Mrs. Snuggles).  But what I am saying is that your definition (which matches no known H/C legal definitions) is that a crime against an entire segment of the population is a "Hate Crime."  Leaving out the complete inability for you or anyone to define "segment of the population," this also would suggest an attack on an individual cannot be an attack on an "entire segment of the population."  Q.E.D. a single attack cannot be a Hate Crime by your (flawed) definition.

I know you are a child and are learning, so I appreciate these "learning moment" opportunities.
 

[The Night Owl]

So, murder is already illegal. You're saying it should be illegal to hate someone or some group now? Yes, you are bartering in thought crimes.

No, I'm not saying that hate or even expressions of hate should be illegal. What I'm saying is if a criminal act is committed with the intent of terrorizing or harrassing a segment of the population, then the judge presiding over the prosecution of that crime should take the intent of the crime into consideration when determining the punishment.

If a group of skinheads spraypaint the words "Jews must die" on a Jewish family's home, should the skinheads be prosecuted for only vandalism? Of course not. The skinheads should be prosecuted for vandalism and for making threats against a segment of the population.

[Rebel]

If a group of skinheads spraypaint the words "Jews must die" on a Jewish family's home, should the skinheads be prosecuted for only vandalism? Of course not. The skinheads should be prosecuted for vandalism and for making threats against a segment of the population.

No, they should be prosecuted for making terroristic threats and vandalism. Not ****ing Hate Crimes legislation bullshit.

[The Night Owl]

So what are you going to use as "proof" of intent? I'm serious...running into a bar saying "black guys suck!" and letting loose with a spray of gunfire MIGHT (by whatever definition YOU'VE constructed)...or maybe he's a distraught gay man whose black lover just left him and doesn't really hate blacks at all. Or maybe he is a secret racist and his boyfriend left him because he was tired of feeling like he was living with Robert Byrd's son. How do we "know"?

Cindie

Courts have various ways of determining intent... testimony... hard evidence... circumstantial evidence.

[The Night Owl]

No, they should be prosecuted for making terroristic threats and vandalism. Not ******* Hate Crimes legislation bullshit.

Well, like I wrote earlier, I consider terrorism and hate crimes to be in the same category. A hate crime is simply a subset of terrorism.

[Rebel]

Well, like I wrote earlier, I consider terrorism and hate crimes to be in the same category. A hate crime is simply a subset of terrorism.

Oh bullshit. It's nothing more than an ploy by the left in this country to make victims out of everyone. There is nothing worse than murder....until f'n liberals started making 30 different terms to describe one f'n crime.

[Attero Dominatus]

If I use your criteria, I need to actually attack a LOT of people to "terrorize a segment of the population."  Should the VA snipers have been prosecuted for targeting white people?

If evidence is found that the VA snipers targeted whites with the intent of terrorizing whites, then their crimes should be prosecuted as hate crimes.

hatecrimes are leftist bullshit aimed at criminalizing thought. murderers deserve to die regardless of their motivation.

[The Night Owl]

...but they weren't. I don't think there's been a black person to date convicted of hate crimes legislation.  

Myth.

9 black youths guilty in Calif. hate-crime attack

Nine of 10 black youths ages 12 to 18 were convicted today of beating three young white women on Halloween in an affluent section of Long Beach, Calif.,  with eight defendants guilty of a hate crime, the local Press Telegram reports. Long Beach Superior Court Judge Gibson Lee also ruled that five of the nine — eight girls and a boy — had inflicted great bodily harm. The youngest defendant, a 12-year-old girl, was acquitted of all charges.

All 10 were charged with felony assault. The hate-crime "enhancement" resulted from victim and witness accounts that "several youths within a crowd of 20 to 40 people yelled racial slurs as the victims were pelted with newspapers, fruit and pumpkins, then beat to the ground with fists, feet, a skateboard and tree branches," staff writer Tracy Manzer writes.

The nine will be sentenced in several weeks.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/01/9_black_youths_.html

[The Night Owl]

hatecrimes are leftist bullshit aimed at criminalizing thought. murderers deserve to die regardless of their motivation.

If child who has been raped for many years by a parent one day kills that parent, then shouldn't the actions of the parent be a mitigating factor in determining the punishment for the murder?

[Chris_]

So, murder is already illegal. You're saying it should be illegal to hate someone or some group now? Yes, you are bartering in thought crimes.

No, I'm not saying that hate or even expressions of hate should be illegal. What I'm saying is if a criminal act is committed with the intent of terrorizing or harrassing a segment of the population, then the judge presiding over the prosecution of that crime should take the intent of the crime into consideration when determining the punishment.

If a group of skinheads spraypaint the words "Jews must die" on a Jewish family's home, should the skinheads be prosecuted for only vandalism? Of course not. The skinheads should be prosecuted for vandalism and for making threats against a segment of the population.

Why?  What did they do to the rest of the community?  They vandalized a single property.  They expressed their views.  The views may be awful, but unless they were to say in a meaningful way "we will kill all Jews" (which is a separate crime -- "making terrorist treats") then it is a single act crime. 

And you still want to punish thought.  Which is standard-issue lib-think, because you really want to use the legal and political system to suppress free thinking, since free thinking is the enemy of liberal thinking.


And if a bunch of skin-heads kill a Jewish kid, what should be the punishment?  How can you discern the thinking of the perpetrators?

[Chris_]

hatecrimes are leftist bullshit aimed at criminalizing thought. murderers deserve to die regardless of their motivation.

If child who has been raped for many years by a parent one day kills that parent, the motivation for the murder should not be a mitigating factor? Harsh.

That is an ACTION, not a thought.  And we are speaking of enhancement, not mitigation.

Again, as a little child, your strawmen (really, Barbie Ken-men) really don't stand up. You need to learn how to learn.

*pat pat*

[The Night Owl]

And if a bunch of skin-heads kill a Jewish kid, what should be the punishment?  How can you discern the thinking of the perpetrators?

The intent behind a hate crime is determined in the same way that the intent behind any crime is determined... though an examination of evidence and testimony.

[The Night Owl]

That is an ACTION, not a thought.  And we are speaking of enhancement, not mitigation.

I know. The hypothetical case I presented was intended only to counter Downing's argument that the motivation behind a murder is irrelevant.

[The Night Owl]

The number of CCers ignoring me just went from 5 to 7 as a result of this thread. Fascinating.

[Chris_]

That is an ACTION, not a thought.  And we are speaking of enhancement, not mitigation.

I know. The hypothetical case I presented was intended only to counter Downing's argument that the motivation behind a crime is irrelevant.

It has some relevancy, but your case is lost.  To kill someone because of their association with a segment of the population (which you have yet to define) as opposed to kill then because of another reason (up to and including randomness) requires the State to mind read.

[Chris_]

The number of CCers ignoring me just went from 5 to 7 as a result of this thread. Fascinating.

You are too insignificant to Ignore, trust me.

You have been foolish, but in your defense, I haven't found you to be abusive.

[DixieBelle]

Hate crime legislation is wrong. It is tantamount to thought crime and is a very slippery slope. Our legal system does just fine without attaching thought crimes to existing charges. I am against hate crime legislation for the same reasons I am against affirmative action. We should never elevate one segment of the population over the rest. It's all politically correct bullshit.

I can say with certainty that every person I've worked with in law enforcement felt dedicated enough to find, charge and prosecute the offenders regardless of the victim's race, gender or sexual orientation. Violence is violence regardless and the fine men and women who dealt with it everyday will tell you that we don't need hate crime legislation. They are color blind, gender blind, sexual orientation blind, etc...when it comes to bringing justice.

We already have laws in place to deal with the crimes committed. No need to attach hate crime charges. Again, slippery slope.

[Attero Dominatus]

That is an ACTION, not a thought.  And we are speaking of enhancement, not mitigation.

I know. The hypothetical case I presented was intended only to counter Downing's argument that the motivation behind a murder is irrelevant.

No my point was the whole concept of hate crimes (and hate speech) is leftist nonsense. It is literally criminalizing thought. People who act on their hatrid for whatever should ultimately be punished for the action, not because they hate whatever they attacked.