2xcharming
Active Member
Actually that's called terroristic threatening and can land you in jail.
Thought crimes?
- Thread starter desert dude
- Start date
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
@ ChesusRice -
"They" are those that have been granted "extra rights" by some legal magic. I don't believe people should get punished for their thoughts, it is when a thought becomes an act that bad things happen.
People that "accidentally" kill somebody? Do you mean in a singular incident or in a "collateral damage" kind of way ? For instance I don't believe the term "collateral damage" excuses people for killing others. It is just more government word manipulation to justify killing innocent people.
I'm okay with forgiving somebody if they caused an accidental death, but I think the person(s) most closely suffering the loss should be able to weigh in on this, ie what and how there may be restitution.
I doubt "they" could be me, but I'm curious what you mean....could you provide an example?
"They" are those that have been granted "extra rights" by some legal magic. I don't believe people should get punished for their thoughts, it is when a thought becomes an act that bad things happen.
People that "accidentally" kill somebody? Do you mean in a singular incident or in a "collateral damage" kind of way ? For instance I don't believe the term "collateral damage" excuses people for killing others. It is just more government word manipulation to justify killing innocent people.
I'm okay with forgiving somebody if they caused an accidental death, but I think the person(s) most closely suffering the loss should be able to weigh in on this, ie what and how there may be restitution.
I doubt "they" could be me, but I'm curious what you mean....could you provide an example?
InCognition
Active Member
Free thought is one in the same with free speech.
The problem is society is turning more so into a bunch of cowards now days, and if something is offensive, these like-minded cowards want this offensiveness prohibited.
You have the human right to think about whatever you so please to think about, and for anyone to object to that, your brain should be censored with a .45 colt.
Sure one has the right to freely think, that another person shouldn't be able to freely think about something else, that one may deem taboo, but one has no right in enforcing what others may not think. One only has the right in enforcing what others may think, and that is, one may think of anything and everything.
For example, the thought that someone has no right in being racist, verbally or mentally, is more asinine than the racism itself. Then again, thinking someone has no right in being racist is a free thought, so to prohibit the free thought of racism, just makes the first party who wants to prohibit such free-thought, a hypocrite.
The problem is society is turning more so into a bunch of cowards now days, and if something is offensive, these like-minded cowards want this offensiveness prohibited.
You have the human right to think about whatever you so please to think about, and for anyone to object to that, your brain should be censored with a .45 colt.
Sure one has the right to freely think, that another person shouldn't be able to freely think about something else, that one may deem taboo, but one has no right in enforcing what others may not think. One only has the right in enforcing what others may think, and that is, one may think of anything and everything.
For example, the thought that someone has no right in being racist, verbally or mentally, is more asinine than the racism itself. Then again, thinking someone has no right in being racist is a free thought, so to prohibit the free thought of racism, just makes the first party who wants to prohibit such free-thought, a hypocrite.
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
Ya
Ok
The OP was bemoaning the fact that the law has different degrees of punishment in relation to intent
And he doesnt think a crime of hate deserves more punishment
The unspoken thing here is
He doesnt think killing someone for the color of their skin is worse than just killing them
If i was to wager a bet (yeah i said it again bitch) I am sure he would probably be ok with the killing of minorities
He has a track record of posting to prove it
desert dude
Well-Known Member
I am not OK with killing anybody, and I have a track record to prove it. I have never killed anybody, and I plan to keep it that way.
missnu
Well-Known Member
I think most hate crimes are crap..anytime someone of one color attacks someone of a different color then it must be a hate crime...but I know for a fact that people commit crimes against their own color that they hate, and those aren't hate crimes..
I am white..if I go beat up a black guy it is a hate crime...if I beat up a white guy it is just a crime...what if I hardly knew the black man, but hated the white one? Then the white one would be the hate crime...and the other would be just a crime...
I feel like racial equality is being treated all the same...not different based on being a different race...
So calling any interracial crime is prejudiced--yes?
I feel like it is.
I am white..if I go beat up a black guy it is a hate crime...if I beat up a white guy it is just a crime...what if I hardly knew the black man, but hated the white one? Then the white one would be the hate crime...and the other would be just a crime...
I feel like racial equality is being treated all the same...not different based on being a different race...
So calling any interracial crime is prejudiced--yes?
I feel like it is.
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
So a guy who runs someone over with a car accidently
should get the same sentence as someone who drags a black man behind a pickup truck to his death simply because the man is black?
The law has and always will use intent on punishing for crimes
In the above example
the victims both were killed only difference was intent
But you are saying the law should do away with intent in determining punishment
missnu
Well-Known Member
but that is the difference between manslaughter and a hate crime...
Did you accidentally run that guy over and then drag him behind your truck after you beat him up...sounds hateful regardless of color...
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
Bullshit
you get into a fight with a black guy
You are just getting into a fight
But if your intent was and it can be demonstrated
You beat him because of the color of his skin
Not only did you attack him
You also attacked the principles of what this country is made of
Freedom and equality for all regardless of sex ethinicity or sexual orientation
So here is a clue for you
Get rid of the nazi tattoos
dont call anyone a nigger
learn what makes you and the minorities the same and stop crying about the difference
we all bleed the same color
Get used to it
You are going to be a minoritie soon
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
desert dude
Well-Known Member
No, obviously not. Accidentally killing somebody is not nearly the same crime as chaining somebody behind a car and dragging them to their death. Intentionally dragging somebody to death is an awful crime no matter the color of the victim.
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
well, of course not, that would be stupid. But he should have the same sentence if he drug a white, yellow, red or black, hetero or homo guy behind his truck. Compare like crimes, then plug your racial stuff into it and see if it still makes sense in your head.
edit: sorry dude, didn't read the responses first, call me polly
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
Intent intent intent
crimes are punished for intent
to bad you dont agree with increased penalties for punishing racists of all colors for their crimes of intent
if you dont like it
Go don your white hood and complain to your local politician
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
But are they punished for the reason behind the intent? That seems to be "on trial" here. cn
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
What "reason" could you have that is acceptable for killing someone for their ethnicity, sexual orientation or religion?
Are you saying it is ok to kill someone simple for their skin tone?
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
You should know better than that, Chesus. i am not saying or implying or countenancing or condoning that.
But "premeditated murder" is a crime of intent. The intent was to kill. Imo the "why" behind the intent is separate from the intent. This is my point, and I do not see how it requires that I be racebaited, or can be contorted into showing that i am a racist. cn
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
As stated before and of course ignored by you
Hate crimes are not just crimes against the victim
But crimes against our society and the principles of our nation
They can also be construed as terroristic actions against communitys
and they deserve higher punishment
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Crimes against our society? That seems to be the same "logic" pot prohibitionists and religious zealots use for "druggies" or unbelievers.
I think it is best to correct people when there is an actual victim, not some airy term such as "crimes against society".
...and in case you're wondering I don't have a white hood. Not even close.
I wonder if you have ever read anything about the non-initiation of aggression principle?
desert dude
Well-Known Member
Dragging somebody behind a truck till they are dead sounds like first degree murder to me. In some states that is punishable by death. I don't agree with the death penalty, but life in prison sounds appropriate.
When you rap a chain around somebody and drag them behind your vehicle your intent (intent intent) is to murder them. The color of the victim's skin is irrelevant, he/she was still murdered.