black lives matter dallas

[sirs]

You really get peeved when your hypocrisy is layed bare.  Seriously though, you really should avoid throwing around the term stupid, when you post things....especially rants.  Igoring the whole idiotic war/blame Bush misdirection, stupid is implying a hate crime can't be a hate crime unless the person committing it is taken alive.  That's a stupid sematic game. 

This whole discussion about hate crime has never been about the potential prosecution of Johnson, it's about the act itself.  And you helped demonstrate how its apparently idiotic for something to be termed a hate crime if its a black person acting out on a white person.  But then immediately fall all over yourself rationalizing how it is a hate crime if a white person, such a white supremist, acts out on a non-white.  That's called hypocrisy

So let's make this easy, for even the xo's of the world can understand.

if ANYONE acts out in such a way to cause damage/injury/death to another person, motivated by their race, is that a hate crime.....yes or no??  (hint, it doesn't require anyone to be taken alive)

And recognizing that dead is dead, are hate crimes idiotic or do they have an important purpose in being classified a hate crime??

[Xavier_Onassis]

I did not say they were idiotic. I say that charging a dead perp of a hate crime is idiotic.
I fullly expect that Roof will get the death penalty, even if they don't charge him with a hate crime.
The only real reason to charge him with a hate crime is to set some sort of precedent.
There would be no point in sentencing Roof to be executed twice, since that is impossible.

Hate crime is more reprehensible.
If you spray a swastika on Beth Shalom or "Die Nigger Die" on the Holy Resurrection Baptist Church
it seems to me that is more antisocial that just tagging the same location with the stylized and usually illegible logo of Gonz0134.
It seems to me that the more antisocial the message, the greater the penalty.

Hate crime would be more useful in deterring non-lethal physical violence against some random individual who belongs to some group just because the victim is someone the perp hates on account of their race, religion or such.

I don't think this is at all complicated.

[sirs]

Let's try this again, for those who still didn't manage to grasp its simplicity the 1st time:

if ANYONE acts out in such a way to cause damage/injury/death to another person, motivated by their race, is that a hate crime.....yes or no??  (hint, it doesn't require anyone to be taken alive, in order to be prosecuted)

[Xavier_Onassis]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posthumous_trial

There have been occasional trials of the deceased,

As a rule, they have been quite successful, as the average recidivism rate is zero.

Posthumous trials are somewhere between extremely rare to nonexistent in thew annals of American jurisprudence.

When the criminal has not been caught, or has jumped bail or otherwise skipped the country, we have tried perps in absentia.

Since you will never admit that I am correct about anything, it seems difficult for you to  discuss this logically,.

[kimba1]

if ANYONE acts out in such a way to cause damage/injury/death to another person, motivated by their race, is that a hate crime.....yes or no??  (hint, it doesn't require anyone to be taken alive, in order to be prosecuted)


I thought i said no due to the requirements are social status based not only race. Hence attacking whites and asians not a hate crime

[kimba1]

But im not sure about jews. I they  get a separate catagory

[sirs]

There have been occasional trials of the deceased,

As a rule, they have been quite successful, as the average recidivism rate is zero.

Posthumous trials are somewhere between extremely rare to nonexistent in thew annals of American jurisprudence.

When the criminal has not been caught, or has jumped bail or otherwise skipped the country, we have tried perps in absentia.

 

And everyone notes that you still couldn't seem to answer a simple yes or no question.  Apparently the concept is still too complicated  (here's a hint, the topic being discussed doesn't requires prosecution.  It simply requires a yes or no to the question posed).  Kimba had no problem with the question.

And when you ever are correct about something we're discussing, I may be too shocked to respond.  Looking forward to that event ever happening......in this lifetime

[sirs]

if ANYONE acts out in such a way to cause damage/injury/death to another person, motivated by their race, is that a hate crime.....yes or no??  (hint, it doesn't require anyone to be taken alive, in order to be prosecuted)

I thought i said no due to the requirements are social status based not only race. Hence attacking whites and asians not a hate crime

Yes you did, Kimba.  You grasped the question being asked, fairly easily.  Thanks for your response.  I have a somewhat different response, in that I don't agree with the whole hate crime classification myself, so my answer would also be no.....you're trying to prosecute thought.  If you kill someone, it shouldn't matter if you killed someone for greed or killed someone because of their race.  The intention was pretty obvious.  Same with acts of vandalism, or acts of violence.  Its the act that should be prosecuted, not what someone might have been thinking at the time

[Xavier_Onassis]

You seem to think that "hate crime" is an actual thing. That every crime is or is not a hate crime.
Hate crime is an emotional term used as a tool to state that a crime deserves greater punishment if it includes reference to hatred of a race, religion or gender or whatever.

You cannot take a conceptual term invented by human beings and use it one does a word like "tree" or "stone".
Everyone agrees on the means of concrete nouns. Conceptual nouns are subject to opinion, and in this case emotional opinion.

If you do not use it to officially label an actual crime, it is meaningless.

Okay, Nat Turner committed hate crimes.
He was executed for his crimes and the word "hate crime" never occurred to anyone.
So what?

You are a simpleton sirs. You want yes or no answers to questions that are multiple choice or require an essay type answer.

[sirs]

It is "a thing", as it relates to the court of law

And everyone notices yet again, your inability to answer a simple yes or no question.  Bravo.  Kimba had no problem with it.  One wonders why you keep stumbling all over it.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Again, it is not a yes or no question.

What is your fucking problem?

I will not allow you to force me to answer your idiotic questions.
I won't  obey you, ever., You are an ignorant asshole.

[sirs]

Yes it is......Kimba figured it out rather easily.  What's your fricken problem I wonder  (actually, that was a rhetorical question, since I already know the answer....its referred to as your underlying hypocrisy on this issue, that you already helped illuminate.)

[kimba1]

But I support hate crime laws due to existing laws are not being enforced so this repetitive law spotlights it. Even though I don't benefit it directly at least the argument helps my people get some protections. The. Very act of complaining about it actually helps keeps these laws in the books and not once has anybody ever said the existing laws are being enforced .

[sirs]

Yes, I recognized that POV the 1st time.  I respectfully disagree in their need, repeating the issue I have about trying to prosecute thought, but at least you were sharp enough to grasp the question being asked, and provide a simple yes or no answer to it

[Xavier_Onassis]

No simple yes or no answer is possible.

Only a specific incident can be labeled a hate crime or not.