Originally Posted By RoadTrip Motive does come in to play. I shoot and kill a guy in my house for no reason and I am charged with murder. I shoot and kill a guy in my house because it is 2:00 AM and he came in through a window and it is justifiable homicide. I intended to kill the guy in both situations... intent was the same. Motive was different. In the first case my motive was to teach the mother a lesson. In the second case my motive was to defend myself. Motive counts.
Originally Posted By jonvn It means that spelling is not going to be a good home school subject for his kids.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Motive counts." Of course it counts. Several people here have explained it already in various examples as to why. You can rob a liquor store to get drug money, or you can rob a liquor store to get money for medicine for your kids. How that ends up being prosecuted and sentencing are going to come out in two different ways.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Matthew Sheppard was attacked because he was gay. Fred Jones was attacked because he had a fancy watch. Both were beaten and killed. What is the difference in the end? Your going to give Sheppards killer more jail time becaue he attacked a gay guy. Great, you prove my point that this is nonsense to punish those mean homophobes and bigots. In the world of the PC liberal crowd those people are worse than terrorists. Terrorsts get special rights,Geneva convention rights and compassion. Someone who beats up a gay person or a minority gets the maximum. Legally it is a joke of an idea and the product of fuzzy PC thinking. Both killers if guilty should get the death penalty. John Wayne justice.
Originally Posted By jonvn "What is the difference in the end?" This has already been explained to you. Is there a reason you need to have it explained to you again? What do you think is going to be different the next time it is explained to you, that you won't get the last couple times it has been explained to you?
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<Motive does come in to play. I shoot and kill a guy in my house for no reason and I am charged with murder.>> Killing a guy in self defense is not the same as killing someone without cause. You can't even use your example in this discussion. We are talking about people commiting crimes, not people defending themsleves.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip << We are talking about people commiting crimes, not people defending themsleves.>> And what is the ONLY difference between the two? Motive.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan What is the difference in the end?<< The difference is that a crime motivated by hate is designed to impact OTHER people of the same race, religion, sexuality beyond just the victim himself. In other words, lynching a black man and hanging his body in the town square in the wee hours of the morning is designed to spread terror and unrest. Yes, the black man is just as dead as if someone killed him for his watch. But his killing is designed to tell other black people "You aren't welcome here" or "Don't step out of line or else". That's the difference. Doesn't make one crime 'better' than the other, but it does make them different.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Killing a guy in self defense is not the same as killing someone without cause." Well, yes. That is what we are saying. The difference is motive.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Someone who beats up a gay person or a minority gets the maximum.<< Now, I've already taught you that 20% of hate crimes prosecuted are against white people, and provided the documented evidence. Yet you persist in repeating this nonsense.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Yet you persist in repeating this nonsense.> It's all he's got. And #90 was right on the money, BTW.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<RT your #83 doesn't work as far as refuting my #77.>> To quote DouglasDubh... It does so.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy This is not about motive it's about being PC, it's about vintage liberalism. I'm the only person who is honest enough to point it out. Barboy at least gets the fact that it is a worthless idea to have a " hate crime " category. Liberals refer to these crimes born of a bigoted mind-set as " hate crimes ". This is what I keep saying that ( no surprise ) gets ignored by the usual suspects on here. What you have done with these " hate crime " laws is you just made it a crime to hate someone or have a bigoted thought. What you people are pushing for is to violate freedom of speech. The First Ammendment has just been torched. If burning a flag is protected free speech, then a bigoted state of mind accompanying a killing should also be entitled to First ammendment protection as well.. don't ya think. Liberals are pushing the thought police on us with this crap. They are going to tell us what the person was REALLY thinking when they killed that gay guy or that black dude. It is off the chart nonsense.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<Now, I've already taught you that 20% of hate crimes prosecuted are against white people, and provided the documented evidence. Yet you persist in repeating this nonsense.>> Why do you brag about this number? All it does is show that white people are hardly ever given the benefit of this stupid " hate crime " idea. Your saying that white people are vicims of your so called hate crimes in only 20% of all hate crimes. Hardly.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <<< We are talking about people commiting crimes, not people defending themsleves.>> And what is the ONLY difference between the two? Motive. < exactly, the end result is they're both dead...
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Why do you brag about this number?<< Because you said never, proving you had no idea whatsoever what the facts are. >>All it does is show that white people are hardly ever given the benefit of this stupid " hate crime " idea. << Calvinball! Game on! LOL!!! First it was 'never.' Then it was "hardly ever'. Then you were embarassed by the documented statistics. Now you're back to 'hardly ever' again. By tomorrow, it'll be 'never.'
