Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>When a black person attacks a white guy in the hood, how many times is that a hate crime? Try never.<< Incorrect. Here's one example: <a href="http://www.wnbc.com/news/9327857/detail.html" target="_blank">http://www.wnbc.com/news/93278 57/detail.html</a>
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Got any more examples K2man? I guess I should have said practically never. Hate crime laws are set up to benifit gays and other minorities who liberals pander to. You are basically guessing what caused someone to do something and then putting a higher penalty on them. If a gay person gets beat up instead of straight white guy the offender gets more jail time in the PC world of hate crime laws that are set up by liberal lawmakers. Yet these same people will never go for the death penalty of a real criminal. They will also go to the matt to give terrorists more rights and protection. This is why we need to keep them out of power and in their espresso stand. Luckily in most parts of the country this is what happens most of the time. Off to play in the World Series of Poker. Bye.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I guess I should have said practically never. << I guess you should have said you were just shooting from the hip, not basing your opinion on much more than a 'gut feeling.'
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Got any more examples K2man?<< A PDF is available of the FBI's Hate Crime report for 2004 (Google that and you'll find it). On page 13: >>Racial bias (edit for brevity)... Nearly 68% of the victims were the object of an anti-black bias. Slightly more than 20% were victims of an anti-white bias, 5.2% were victimized because of an anti-Asian or Pacific Islander bias, and 2% were victims due to an anti-American Indian or Alaskan Native bias. Victims of anti-multiple races bias, i.e. groups in which more than one race was represented, comprised 4.9% of hate crimes.<< So anti-white hate crimes accounted for more than 20%. That doesn't sound like "practically never" to me.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy All right. Either way, hate crime penalties are a waste of time in my opinion. If someone does a crime they get sentenced for what they did, not who they did it to.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>You are basically guessing what caused someone to do something<< There's no guessing involved. Hate crime convictions aren't handed out simply because victim and perpurtrator are of different races, religions or sexuality. Someone gets convicted of a hate crime when it is shown that their anti-religion/race/sexuality bias is in large measure the REASON they committed the crime, or in the victim they selected, in the first place. The prosecution still has to prove that race/sexuality/religious bias were motivating factors in the commission of the crime. They aren't a waste of time at all, in my opinion. It's one more tool law enforcement can use against the bad guys.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA If 'hate crime' is a bunch of PC mumbo-jumbo, then why tell us the guy who commited this crime was Muslim? And that the location he went into was a Jewish Federation? Why not just report that a guy walked into a place and shot people? No POV, no religious bias. Just people shooting at other people.
Originally Posted By Shooba >>If 'hate crime' is a bunch of PC mumbo-jumbo, then why tell us the guy who commited this crime was Muslim?<< Now that's the million dollar question!
Originally Posted By barboy Hate crime legislation is beyond absurd. Why is it important to know one's specific intentions for hurting another? So gunning down another because of the victim's race is worse than just gunning down another because she likes to kill people in general.
Originally Posted By jonvn Because intent is a major portion as to how a case is prosecuted. It's been like that for centuries.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Barboy, you are right again. It doesn't matter what the motivation was, a crime is a crime. Hate crime laws make autorities GUESS the motive of the crime then when they get done guessing the motivation they put a harsher sentence on the person because the attack was due to hate? Stupid.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Hate crime laws make autorities GUESS the motive << No, they don't.
Originally Posted By BlueDevilSF >>Hate crime laws make autorities GUESS the motive of the crime<< What a simplistic little world you live in. I'm no attorney, but even I know that in order to convict someone of a hate crime, the prosecution has to prove that the crime was motivated by bias. Sometimes that is difficult to prove.
Originally Posted By barboy "Because intent is a major portion as to how a case is prosecuted. It's been like that for centuries." This is a very empty answer. Got anything else?
Originally Posted By BlueDevilSF >>So why does a bias make it worse for the victim?<< Because were it not for the bias, there likely would not be a victim in the first place.
Originally Posted By barboy If a black person clubs me in my leg because I am white it hurts just as much as if a white person did it and I was a random victim.
Originally Posted By barboy "Because were it not for the bias, there likely would not be a victim in the first place" yet again, no logical response
Originally Posted By barboy I'll ask again: why does a bias make it WORSE for the victim? Notice the word "worse"
