Because hate is a motive, and motive can be a factor in how harsh the penalties are.

 

Are you arguing that it shouldnt be more of a penalty, or that its duplicative as a law and therefore unnecessary?

 

 

 

 

Bad thought is already punished.

 

Murder 1 v Murder 2.

 

Intentional arson versus non-intentional.

 

If I purposefully burnt down a school, shouldnt I be punished more than if I accidentally burnt down a school?

 

I really dont know where you are going with this.

 

 

You are charged with murder one or murder 2. Not murder, and a hate crime. The addition of hate crime does nothing to make the situation any better for anyone.

 

Alpha, you missed Badger's point. You're treating a hate crime as if the fact one person hates another is the crime itself, which is not the case. A hate crime is a "normal" crime (assault, vandalism, murder, etc.) that was motivated by that hate. What badger was trying to say is that bringing in that motivation is not at all new or exclusive to hate crimes -- plenty, even most, crimes factor in motivation.

 

That's what he was saying about Murder-1 and Murder-2. Yes, you can be charged with either of them, but the difference in what the charge will be often depends on the suspect's motivation. Murder-1 often means it was premeditated, essentially that the suspect planned the crime and carried it out. Murder-2 usually means it was an intentional killing, basically that there wasn't much planning but the suspect still intended to kill the victim (as in, Murder-1 would be "John brings a knife from his house, drive to his ex's house, and stabs and kills her" while Murder-2 would be "John is having a fight with his ex at her house, sees a knife, picks it up, and stabs and kills her.") To decide between Murder-1 and Murder-2, the prosecutor would look at the intent and motivation behind the killing -- the same way they could look to see if it was motivated by a hate for that group (be it race, religion, sexual orientation, whatever).

Dude blows up bridge because he is a dips***

 

Dude blows up bridge and claims he is doing it on behalf of an Islamic resistance group

 

...are those two things not different? The same thing happened but one of them has the element of terrorism added to it.

 

Terrorism =/= Hate crime

 

Completely different.

Terrorism =/= Hate crime

 

Completely different.

 

So if there was a terrorist attack in this country because the perpetrators hated America that doesn't make it a hate crime?

 

They're often quite similar actually

And charging someone with a hate crime does WHAT!? Besides making you feel good.

 

Charging someone with murder doesn't make your family undead. What does it accomplish besides making you feel good?

You still have to have done SOMETHING. Talked to someone about killing your wife, bought bomb parts online after posting you wanted to kill XXX and so on. They get terrorists on that for conspiracy after they buy (fake) bombs from undercover officers. So they DID something, not just woke up one day and said to themselves 'i wanna blow up a bridge today'.

 

Hate crimes are only brought in as motives for other crimes, correct? So it's still the same; you still have to "do something," in this case shooting up a temple full of people.

Maybe because a white supremacist shot up a Sikh temple during there services? I severely doubt everyone in that temple was an asshole.

 

I can't believe you're arguing against having hate crimes. That's astounding.

 

The irony is that you'll see most of the same arguments the left makes against the death penalty.

 

-Does it really serve as a deterrence?

-How do you evenly enforce it?

The irony is that you'll see most of the same arguments the left makes against the death penalty.

 

-Does it really serve as a deterrence?

-How do you evenly enforce it?

 

My argument against the death penalty is that humans are imperfect and I wont be associated with the killing of an innocent human.

 

How does that relate at all to whether or not motivation should be taken into account when giving a penalty.

 

So if there was a terrorist attack in this country because the perpetrators hated America that doesn't make it a hate crime?

 

They're often quite similar actually

 

Sarcasm.

My argument against the death penalty is that humans are imperfect and I wont be associated with the killing of an innocent human.

 

How does that relate at all to whether or not motivation should be taken into account when giving a penalty.

Because when the crime is black on white, or Muslum against Jew, police always tiptoe around saying it was/could be a hate crime. Maj. Nidal shoots up an army base because he hates non muslims, it gets called 'workplace violence', not a hate crime, or terrorism. It isn't applied evenly, in any stretch of the imagination, at all. 'Hate' isn't just whitey hating xxx.

Because when the crime is black on white, or Muslum against Jew, police always tiptoe around saying it was/could be a hate crime. Maj. Nidal shoots up an army base because he hates non muslims, it gets called 'workplace violence', not a hate crime, or terrorism. It isn't applied evenly, in any stretch of the imagination, at all. 'Hate' isn't just whitey hating xxx.

 

False.

 

Defense attorneys are challenging the validity of the expert witness, who plans to testify that Hasan is a "homegrown terrorist," according to previous pretrial hearing discussions. A defense expert witness may testify at the hearing to counter the prosecution team's witness.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/03/f..._n_1736878.html

False.

 

False what?

 

That story has nothing to do with the point the poster you replied too even tried to make.

 

And what he said holds some water, whether you like it or not, whether it should or not. Sometimes it may be hyperbole, but often, it's not far from the truth.

Edited August 7, 201213 yr by Y2HH

False what?

 

That story has nothing to do with the point the poster you replied too even tried to make.

 

He said it got called workplace violence, while right there it is called homegrown terrorism.

He said it got called workplace violence, while right there it is called homegrown terrorism.

 

It says nothing of the sort.

 

Maybe you should read your own links...it says exactly what he's being charged with. And the story, as a whole, is about him following army regulations.

 

Note, it doesn't say anything about being charged with a hate crime or terrorist acts...you know, the ACTUAL charges you'd be speaking of. It doesn't matter if an expert witness wants to talk about him being a "homegrown terrorist", when he wasn't charged with that in the case they're hearing...which is why the defense is asking that it be dismissed. He's charged with murder/attempted murder...and that's all that matters.

 

"Hasan is charged with 13 counts of premeditated murder and 32 counts of attempted premeditated murder in the November 2009 attack on the Texas Army post."

Edited August 7, 201213 yr by Y2HH

It says nothing of the sort.

 

Maybe you should read your own links...it says exactly what he's being charged with. And the story, as a whole, is about him following army regulations.

 

Note, it doesn't say anything about being charged with a hate crime...you know, the ACTUAL charge, or terrorism. It doesn't matter if an expert witness wants to talk about him being a terrorist, when he wasn't charged with that in the case they're hearing...which is why the defense is asking that it be dismissed.

 

"Hasan is charged with 13 counts of premeditated murder and 32 counts of attempted premeditated murder in the November 2009 attack on the Texas Army post."

 

Yeah, I read it. I also know that if the liberal media wanted it to be viewed as something other than terrorism, like "workplace violence" they wouldn't have mentioned it. That's how it works, it's how opinion is inserted without actually outright saying it.

Yeah, I read it. I also know that if the liberal media wanted it to be viewed as something other than terrorism, like "workplace violence" they wouldn't have mentioned it. That's how it works, it's how opinion is inserted without actually outright saying it.

 

Well, I won't argue that. That's the sort of thing that usually happens when a story is written, rewritten, etc...passed down, told and retold. Somewhere along the line, a lot of garbage get's added in.

 

That said, he's being charged as a murderer, says nothing about being charged with acts of terrorism (or 'conspiracy to'), so whether the liberal/independent or conservative media says it or not, it doesn't even matter, since he wasn't officially charged with anything of the sort.

Edited August 7, 201213 yr by Y2HH

Terrorism =/= Hate crime

 

Completely different.

They are not the same thing but the logic being used is exactly the same here. Although terrorism does have a definition it's hard to apply to the real world and pretty difficult to prosecute so a lot of times terrorists end up getting charged with ordinary crimes (murder, etc. Richard Reid got charged with attempted murder, interfering with a flight crew, attempted destruction of an aircraft etc. etc. etc.)

 

 

edit: n/m I didn't see until later that you were being sarcastic

 

So if there was a terrorist attack in this country because the perpetrators hated America that doesn't make it a hate crime?

 

They're often quite similar actually

Yeah, that's kinda oversimplifying it, but basically. Terrorism isn't a "hate crime" in the literal sense because it's political but it's the same... adding motive/extra element to an existing crime.

Edited August 8, 201213 yr by lostfan

They are not the same thing but the logic being used is exactly the same here. Although terrorism does have a definition it's hard to apply to the real world and pretty difficult to prosecute so a lot of times terrorists end up getting charged with ordinary crimes (murder, etc. Richard Reid got charged with attempted murder, interfering with a flight crew, attempted destruction of an aircraft etc. etc. etc.)

 

 

edit: n/m I didn't see until later that you were being sarcastic

 

Thank you for basically making the point I was too lazy to make.

They are not the same thing but the logic being used is exactly the same here. Although terrorism does have a definition it's hard to apply to the real world and pretty difficult to prosecute so a lot of times terrorists end up getting charged with ordinary crimes (murder, etc. Richard Reid got charged with attempted murder, interfering with a flight crew, attempted destruction of an aircraft etc. etc. etc.)

 

 

edit: n/m I didn't see until later that you were being sarcastic

 

 

Yeah, that's kinda oversimplifying it, but basically. Terrorism isn't a "hate crime" in the literal sense because it's political but it's the same... adding motive/extra element to an existing crime.

 

It is a hateful hate crime?

Because when the crime is black on white, or Muslum against Jew, police always tiptoe around saying it was/could be a hate crime. Maj. Nidal shoots up an army base because he hates non muslims, it gets called 'workplace violence', not a hate crime, or terrorism. It isn't applied evenly, in any stretch of the imagination, at all. 'Hate' isn't just whitey hating xxx.

If a black person commits a crime against a white person that's just regular crime. If said black person belonged to an organized element who had the intent specifically to target whites with violence then yes, it would be a hate crime. I don't know what you're getting at with Muslim against Jew violence since anti-Semitic violence (including by Muslims) is one of the main types of hate crimes and really I would guess we probably have hate crime legislation in the first place because of Jews although I'd have to read up on that to verify that statement.

 

MAJ Hassan is a stone cold terrorist so I'm not sure where you're going with that. That's pretty open and shut and it doesn't get any more basic than that, with the intent, foreign connection, and so on. Still, he is being charged with multiple counts of homicide. On the other hand if he did not have the terrorist links and he didn't yell out "Allahu Akhbar" he'd have just been a Muslim dude that went apes*** and started shooting people. Muslims commit crimes like any other group of people and it's not necessarily terrorism.

 

The Hassan incident is simultaneously a workplace violence incident (it isn't something either-or, or zero-sum) because he exhibited certain indicators before he went on his shooting spree.

It is a hateful hate crime?

I only kill your people in large numbers because I care about them and want better things for them

FBI says the temple gunman took his own life, was not killed by police officer's shots.

FBI says the temple gunman took his own life, was not killed by police officer's shots.

 

He hated white people.

If a black person commits a crime against a white person that's just regular crime. If said black person belonged to an organized element who had the intent specifically to target whites with violence then yes, it would be a hate crime. I don't know what you're getting at with Muslim against Jew violence since anti-Semitic violence (including by Muslims) is one of the main types of hate crimes and really I would guess we probably have hate crime legislation in the first place because of Jews although I'd have to read up on that to verify that statement.

 

MAJ Hassan is a stone cold terrorist so I'm not sure where you're going with that. That's pretty open and shut and it doesn't get any more basic than that, with the intent, foreign connection, and so on. Still, he is being charged with multiple counts of homicide. On the other hand if he did not have the terrorist links and he didn't yell out "Allahu Akhbar" he'd have just been a Muslim dude that went apes*** and started shooting people. Muslims commit crimes like any other group of people and it's not necessarily terrorism.

 

The Hassan incident is simultaneously a workplace violence incident (it isn't something either-or, or zero-sum) because he exhibited certain indicators before he went on his shooting spree.

 

Wait, what? You're saying if a black person committed a crime against a white person solely because he's white, that wouldn't be a hate crime? That he'd have to be part of some bigger group? I'm not aware of any requirement that you have to belong to an "organized element" to be guilty of a hate crime. The only requirement is that you commit a crime motivated by race.

Edited August 8, 201213 yr by Jenksismybitch

I think he was just saying that random interracial crimes aren't considered hate crimes, there has to be some clear hate-based motive.

Wait, what? You're saying if a black person committed a crime against a white person solely because he's white, that wouldn't be a hate crime? That he'd have to be part of some bigger group? I'm not aware of any requirement that you have to belong to an "organized element" to be guilty of a hate crime. The only requirement is that you commit a crime motivated by race.

Remove "solely because he's white" because you added the entire thing.

 

If Random Black Dude is robbing a liquor store and he kills the white cashier in the process that's not a hate crime.