Feds Charge White Man With Hate Crime In First ‘Knockout Game’ Prosecution

BigNBushy

Well-Known Member
Degree is determined by motive.
Degree should be determined by suffering inflicted.

If you want to off me for no good reason, a bullet in the head will suffice.

Don't beat me and tie me to a fence to die for days, or drag me behind a truck.

That's what some bigoted scum did to some poor queer and colored man respectively to start the push for hate crimes legislation.

You shouldn't fucking kill anyone that way.
 

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Degree should be determined by suffering inflicted.
Suffering inflicted is one of the things a court observes when deciding the degree of a crime.

Aren't you studying law or something?

Degree of crime refers to the classification of a single crime into several grades of guilt. The degree of crime is determined according to the circumstances necessitating the commission of the crime. For example, type of injury and aggravating factors. One way to determine the degree of crime is to calculate the amount of damages that can be claimed.
http://definitions.uslegal.com/d/degree-of-crime/

A "hate crime" law generally falls in to one of several categories:

  1. laws defining specific bias-motivated acts as distinct crimes;
  2. criminal penalty-enhancement laws;
  3. laws creating a distinct civil cause of action for hate crimes; and
  4. laws requiring administrative agencies to collect hate crime statistics.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime

Now, I'm going to stipulate that I am not defending the laws, but defining. Overall, I think that committing a crime against a person because of a bias is sociopathic and that there is no way to rehabilitate a sociopath. I can't change the laws and while you are free to cavil as you please, I'm just going to point out that in so doing, you belie a lack of grasp of the intent of the laws, as did Ginwilly. The intent specifically, is to add an extra charge. For example, if someone punches you out for being homosexual, they would be charged with assault and with "bias motivated crime" or "hate crime". However in some cases it only provides for enhanced punishment. In absolutely no cases do these laws ever intend leniency for criminals who commit crimes with out bias.

In the United States, the first such laws were designed to combat the KKK.
 

ginwilly

Well-Known Member
AC, I understand the intent, . I just disagree with the premise. I don't agree with that type of responsibility being put on juries. I would demand no less justice if a white man killed my mother for nefarious reasons than if a black man did it. Putting the responsibility on the jury to decide if that it should carry a longer sentence based on color is wrong.

Feel free to change this to mean whatever you want, it's your thing. You are almost as bad as the resident court jester yelling racist at every other post.
 

BigNBushy

Well-Known Member
Suffering inflicted is one of the things a court observes when deciding the degree of a crime.

Aren't you studying law or something?


http://definitions.uslegal.com/d/degree-of-crime/

A "hate crime" law generally falls in to one of several categories:


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime

Now, I'm going to stipulate that I am not defending the laws, but defining. Overall, I think that committing a crime against a person because of a bias is sociopathic and that there is no way to rehabilitate a sociopath. I can't change the laws and while you are free to cavil as you please, I'm just going to point out that in so doing, you belie a lack of grasp of the intent of the laws, as did Ginwilly. The intent specifically, is to add an extra charge. For example, if someone punches you out for being homosexual, they would be charged with assault and with "bias motivated crime" or "hate crime". However in some cases it only provides for enhanced punishment. In absolutely no cases do these laws ever intend leniency for criminals who commit crimes with out bias.

In the United States, the first such laws were designed to combat the KKK.
I know it is. In my state, generally speaking, we dont give the death penalty to folks who quickly dispatch their victims.

A shot to the head gets you life, not death.

That is the way it should be I think.

I just don't understand the hate crime mentality. Why anyone would kill someone for just being someone different.

Then again, I don't know why that is treated much worse than killing someone because you wanted the money in their pockets.

Dead is dead. Just kill the person and be done with it. That sucks enough, no need to torture them.
 

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
I would demand no less justice if a white man killed my mother for nefarious reasons than if a black man did it.

Feel free to change this to mean whatever you want, it's your thing.
You didn't answer my question. So clearly distortion is your thing

Do you think that there is a difference between someone murdering your mother over race and you murdering that person months later in a well planned retaliation?
 

ginwilly

Well-Known Member
In fairness I'll answer your question now. Under hate crime legislation, it would have to be determined since race played a part in the first murder, it would also have to be determined if it played a role in the 2nd. Did I kill them because they killed my mother or because they killed my mother AND were a different race. I'm not in favor of putting juries in that position.

And don't worry, you'll get called racist for being against hate crimes, but by people who call everyone a racist who disagrees with their agenda.
You didn't answer my question. So clearly distortion is your thing

Do you think that there is a difference between someone murdering your mother over race and you murdering that person months later in a well planned retaliation?
You can't seriously be that dense and dishonest.

Heads up, that really was rhetorical.

I'll never understand why anyone would call someone out in the very same thread they made such of fool of themselves in. But you did, you are THAT guy.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
You didn't answer my question. So clearly distortion is your thing

Do you think that there is a difference between someone murdering your mother over race and you murdering that person months later in a well planned retaliation?
he will never respond to the very clear distinction you are making because to acknowledge it would be to acknowledge the basis for hate crimes.

ginwilly thinks hate crimes are a method of persecuting whites, not punishing racism and bigotry. to acknowledge otherwise would damage his retarded worldview in which whites are some kind of persecuted faction that must bravely stand up to those whiny and demanding minority types.

the rest of society sees the distinction though, and recognizes the extra heinousness involved in killing or hurting someone solely due to their skin color or sexual preference.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
I would demand no less justice if a white man killed my mother for nefarious reasons than if a black man did it.
you clearly demonstrated that you don't get what a hate crime even is, so you should probably not bother opening your mouth to remove all doubt.

this is kind of like the affirmative action debate where you and your retarded buddies all tilt at "quota" windmills, even though quotas are illegal and just another way for you to demonstrate how clueless you are.

please just go away.
 

BigNBushy

Well-Known Member
he will never respond to the very clear distinction you are making because to acknowledge it would be to acknowledge the basis for hate crimes.

ginwilly thinks hate crimes are a method of persecuting whites, not punishing racism and bigotry. to acknowledge otherwise would damage his retarded worldview in which whites are some kind of persecuted faction that must bravely stand up to those whiny and demanding minority types.

the rest of society sees the distinction though, and recognizes the extra heinousness involved in killing or hurting someone solely due to their skin color or sexual preference.
Matthew Sheppard was the name of the gay guy in Wyoming that was part of the initial push for hate crimes.

He wasn't killed just because he was gay. He fucking kissed and brokebacked the wrong guy at a bar.

I'm not defending the resulting action of going out and beating him and tying him to a fence to die.

But the instances of "hey, there is a black/queer/mexican, wouldn't it be funny if I killed him" are very rare.
 

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
he will never respond to the very clear distinction you are making because to acknowledge it would be to acknowledge the basis for hate crimes.

ginwilly thinks hate crimes are a method of persecuting whites, not punishing racism and bigotry. to acknowledge otherwise would damage his retarded worldview in which whites are some kind of persecuted faction that must bravely stand up to those whiny and demanding minority types.

the rest of society sees the distinction though, and recognizes the extra heinousness involved in killing or hurting someone solely due to their skin color or sexual preference.
At least he declared victory.
 

killemsoftly

Well-Known Member
[QUOTE="BigNBushy, post: 10492545, member: 613618".....
But the instances of "hey, there is a black/queer/mexican, wouldn't it be funny if I killed him" are very rare.[/QUOTE]
True enough.
Much more common for a deranged gunmen to shoot a room full of random people.
 

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
So ginwilly, do you think that there is a difference between someone murdering your mother over race and you murdering that person months later in a well planned retaliation?
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Matthew Sheppard was the name of the gay guy in Wyoming that was part of the initial push for hate crimes.

He wasn't killed just because he was gay. He fucking kissed and brokebacked the wrong guy at a bar.

I'm not defending the resulting action of going out and beating him and tying him to a fence to die.

But the instances of "hey, there is a black/queer/mexican, wouldn't it be funny if I killed him" are very rare.
try convincing someone else. i just watched a documentary about skinheads and their prevalence.

the SPLC doesn't exist for nothing, ya know.
 

BigNBushy

Well-Known Member
try convincing someone else. i just watched a documentary about skinheads and their prevalence.

the SPLC doesn't exist for nothing, ya know.
I've never seen one of these skinheads.

I'm sure they exist. But there are probably more billionaires.

Most of them are to chicken shit to just up and kill someone.

The SPLC exists so guys like you can feel important. They don't do much.
 
Top