Hate crime legislation was passed for no other reason except to skirt double jeopardy and allow the federal government to try a person again for the same crime.
Pretty much that. And charging something as a hate crime is impossible to prove on it's face unless the person said something before the act. Without something either expressed verbally or in writing, it is impossible to know what is in a persons mind, or what they were thinking short of them testifying against themselves. The act committed, in and of itself, gives no clue to the mindset of the perpetrator, and anyone saying they can prove this mindset without a look into the persons motive, either by verbal or written evidence, is just blowing smoke up somebody's skirt.
Calling the Nazi extermination a hate crime is only scratching the surface. Ever heard of Eugenics? The Nazis were practicing that to it's logical conclusion to produce their "Master Race". And the hands of the U.S. were by no means clean of that during the same time period. Pot, meet kettle.
There are plenty of differences in the examples you gave, differences in sentencing and difference in the crimes themselves. For example, planning to kill someone and following through with that is much different from killing someone in the heat of passion.
It's fine to infer motivation based on evidence. So far as "vandalism" is concerned, the motivation is all important. If you draw swastikas on a fence, that's one thing. If you draw them on a synagogue you can infer a deeper purpose behind the crime.
You have an unusually simplistic and unreal view of the criminal justice system. It's not supported by law or custom.
Simple is good, Gene. Simple is liberating. What you call 'law' is nothing more than a collection of rules put together by folks intentionally complicating matters to differentiate between people. You want to know what the opposite of unusually simplistic is? Overly complicated. When did simplification become a bad thing?
That 'law', custom or you don't support my view on this matter concerns me not in the least.
As to 'inferring deeper purpose' to a crime: Who gets to decide? What criteria will they use to decide? At what point do we say that hating 'this much' is okay, but don't cross that line because we'll bring out the hate hammer? Maybe you're comfortable with that sort of thing, I sure as hell am not.
"Bipartisan" usually means that a bigger than normal deception is happening.
George Carlin
You and tennmike missed your callings as lawyers. You make absolutely no sense at all in your wild ranting. Which isn't based in law, just on your personal narrow view. Acting on your own feelings and beliefs will allow you to philosophize in front of a jury which has only the law to go on.
As to who decides, a jury would decide. That's the way it's been in the US since the Constitution.
Concealed carry is for protection, open carry is for attention.
You and tennmike missed your callings as lawyers. You make absolutely no sense at all in your wild ranting. Which isn't based in law, just on your personal narrow view. Acting on your own feelings and beliefs will allow you to philosophize in front of a jury which has only the law to go on.
As to who decides, a jury would decide. That's the way it's been in the US since the Constitution.
Never claimed to be a lawyer, so put down the crack pipe.
And if YOU or the LAW presume to know what is/was in someone's mind at the time a crime was committed, then I presume that you have these two essential items to divine what is in their heads without any written or oral evidence provided by them or reliable witnesses.
I'll patiently wait while you trot out your exceptional mind reading abilities and tell me what I'm thinking at 13:49 hours on 3/17/2015.
“I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer” ― Douglas Adams
There's a name for those like you and coolgunguy: two terms, actually. S--- house lawyers, and inmates. There are plenty of legal indicators of what the state of mind was. Way too many to go into. Use common sense.
Concealed carry is for protection, open carry is for attention.
There's a name for those like you and coolgunguy: two terms, actually. S--- house lawyers, and inmates. There are plenty of legal indicators of what the state of mind was. Way too many to go into. Use common sense.
I did use common sense, an ability you obviously lack.
“I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer” ― Douglas Adams
There's a name for those like you and coolgunguy: two terms, actually. S--- house lawyers, and inmates. There are plenty of legal indicators of what the state of mind was. Way too many to go into. Use common sense.
Don’t, I say don’t that be an oxymoron (oxymora or oxymorons).................say what , boy!
You made a funny son and nobody's laughing. :devil:
The just arrested a guy today for attempting to join ISIS. Last name Pugh. His intentions according to the US was to become a martyr based on his letters on his laptop. Which may be obvious to all people (well, not to a couple here) that state of mind is important in prosecuting a criminal.
Concealed carry is for protection, open carry is for attention.
Just when I wuz thunking the forum is slow and sorta mundane today, I opened this thread :yesno: :yesno: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:
It's only true if it's on this forum where opinions are facts and facts are opinions
Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
The just arrested a guy today for attempting to join ISIS. Last name Pugh. His intentions according to the US was to become a martyr based on his letters on his laptop. Which may be obvious to all people (well, not to a couple here) that state of mind is important in prosecuting a criminal.
Evidently a lot of little punks want to join ISIS if they get to behead people. I guess it's kind of like me asking Mormons if I can have a new 16 year old every 10 years if I join.
Wal Mart where the discriminating white trash shop.
Paddle faster!!! I hear banjos.
Reason for editing: correcting my auto correct
Gene, if your crystal ball is out of whack, T. Leary's Astral Plane sales and service is offering a special this month. Bring in your astral plane for servicing, and the crystal ball alignment and service is free. He's also running a special on Orange Sunshine and Purple Haze; 50% off both with astral plane servicing.
“I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer” ― Douglas Adams
I looked under chairs
I looked under tables
I'm tryin to find the key
To fifty million fables
They call me the seeker
I been searchin low and high
I wont get to get what I'm after
Till the day I die
I asked bobby dylan
I asked the beatles
I asked timothy leary
But he couldn't help me either
They call me the seeker
I been searchin low and high
I wont get to get what I'm after
Till the day I die
People tend to hate me
Cuz I never smile
As I ransack their homes
They wanna shake my hand
Focusing on nowhere
Investigating miles
I'm a seeker I'm a really desperate man
I wont get to get what I'm after
Till the day I die
I learned to raise my voice in anger
Yeah but look at my face ain't this a smile
I'm happy when life's good and when its bad I cry
I got values but I don't know how or why
I'm lookin for me
You're lookin for you
Were lookin at each other and we don't know what to do
They call me the seeker
I been searchin low and high
I wont get to get what I'm after
Till the day I die
It's only true if it's on this forum where opinions are facts and facts are opinions
Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
Timothy Leary's dead.
No, no, no, no, He's outside looking in.
Timothy Leary's dead.
No, no, no, no, He's outside looking in.
He'll fly his astral plane,
Takes you trips around the bay,
Brings you back the same day,
Timothy Leary. Timothy Leary.
Timothy Leary's dead.
No, no, no, no, He's outside looking in.
Timothy Leary's dead.
No, no, no, no, He's outside looking in.
He'll fly his astral plane,
Takes you trips around the bay,
Brings you back the same day,
Timothy Leary. Timothy Leary.
Along the coast you'll hear them boast
About a light they say that shines so clear.
So raise your glass, we'll drink a toast
To the little man who sells you thrills along the pier.
He'll take you up, he'll bring you down,
He'll plant your feet back firmly on the ground.
He flies so high, he swoops so low,
He knows exactly which way he's gonna go.
Timothy Leary. Timothy Leary.
He'll take you up, he'll bring you down,
He'll plant your feet back on the ground.
He'll fly so high, he'll swoop so low.
Timothy Leary.
He'll fly his astral plane.
He'll take you trips around the bay.
He'll bring you back the same day.
Timothy Leary. Timothy Leary.
Timothy Leary. Timothy Leary.
Timothy Leary.
“I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer” ― Douglas Adams
There's a name for those like you and coolgunguy: two terms, actually. S--- house lawyers, and inmates. There are plenty of legal indicators of what the state of mind was. Way too many to go into. Use common sense.
I got your 'terms'...right here.
"Bipartisan" usually means that a bigger than normal deception is happening.
George Carlin
The just arrested a guy today for attempting to join ISIS. Last name Pugh. His intentions according to the US was to become a martyr based on his letters on his laptop. Which may be obvious to all people (well, not to a couple here) that state of mind is important in prosecuting a criminal.
You mean he had to TELL them what his intentions were?!? Why didn't they just read his mind?
You seriously thought this was an argument in your favor??:silly:
"Bipartisan" usually means that a bigger than normal deception is happening.
George Carlin
Are we going to rely on what he said? As opposed to his actions? If a guy says he's innocent of robbery and caught on film asking for money with a gun in his hand are we to suppose he's innocent and let him go because we can't infer his actions?
I have no idea what you're talking about and don't think you do either, but I'd be willing to listen to a rational explanation.
Concealed carry is for protection, open carry is for attention.
The just arrested a guy today for attempting to join ISIS. Last name Pugh. His intentions according to the US was to become a martyr based on his letters on his laptop. Which may be obvious to all people (well, not to a couple here) that state of mind is important in prosecuting a criminal.
State of mind may be used as corroborating evidence, but in and of itself, is not a crime. It might, in some cases, be enough evidence to obtain a search warrant, or together with other circumstantial evidence, good enough for an indictment. But, in no case I've heard of can a person be convicted for what he's fantasizing about doing, unless there is clear evidence that he is physically preparing to commit a crime. Hating, racial or otherwise, is not illegal unless acted upon in an illegal way.
Of course, I don't know what all the feds can prosecute a person for, by extrapolating from their hate crime laws.
Are we going to rely on what he said? As opposed to his actions? If a guy says he's innocent of robbery and caught on film asking for money with a gun in his hand are we to suppose he's innocent and let him go because we can't infer his actions?
I have no idea what you're talking about and don't think you do either, but I'd be willing to listen to a rational explanation.
I agree. You have no idea what I'm talking about.
I thought I replied to this last night, but apparently not. Here goes again: I think you might be misunderstanding what I'm saying. I am NOT saying that a person who commits a crime is innocent because we don't know his state of mind. I'm saying a criminal is not MORE GUILTY because of his/her state of mind. If you're thinking I'm wishy-washy on punishment, think again. I simply do not think that cops, prosecutors, judges, juries and or any member of this government-or any other-is any where near capable enough to fairly implement a punishment system covering a person's 'hate'. I think trying to do so is asinine.
Were the guys who dragged the gay fella behind their truck more guilty of murder because they didn't like his lifestyle? If some dudes had dragged somebody else 'just because', would they have been less guilty? If you believe this, I feel sorry for you.
"Bipartisan" usually means that a bigger than normal deception is happening.
George Carlin
Are we going to rely on what he said? As opposed to his actions? If a guy says he's innocent of robbery and caught on film asking for money with a gun in his hand are we to suppose he's innocent and let him go because we can't infer his actions?
I have no idea what you're talking about and don't think you do either, but I'd be willing to listen to a rational explanation.
We're talking hate crime, and you bring up a straight up robbery as an example. Do you know beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime was committed due to hate for the store owner? Where is your evidence of a crime committed for reason other than greed? Where is the evidence of the hate crime 'beyond reasonable doubt' as required by criminal prosecution that the crime was motivated totally or even partially by hate? Fail, because you can't read minds.
“I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer” ― Douglas Adams
The slaughter of 6 million Jews was a hate crime. The recent killing of two policemen in NY was a hate crime. The killings by Hasan at Ft. Hood was a hate crime.
Concealed carry is for protection, open carry is for attention.
The slaughter of 6 million Jews was a hate crime. The recent killing of two policemen in NY was a hate crime. The killings by Hasan at Ft. Hood was a hate crime.
The hating part wasn't the crime, only the physical violence, in all of your examples. A government that will arrest people for hating has power over the people to jail them for anything. There is no end to the way the people can be stifled if someone is allowed to define hate in any way they want to. That has already been done to a great extent, by making people afraid to tell the truth about some things because they will be called haters. The logical extension of that is to make hating, as defined by the government, a crime.
All governments are corrupt to some extent, and the ones that can prosecute people for what they can be said to think are the most corrupt and dangerous of all. When they do that, they are basically operating the same as the mafia, who killed anyone they were suspicious of, just to be safe.
This country does not arrest anyone for hating. "Hate crime" doesn't mean that, it means a crime committed because of hate. It's a cause, not an effect. A motivation. Nasan hated US soldiers, therefore he killed them. The guy in NY hated police, which is why he killed two of them.
Concealed carry is for protection, open carry is for attention.
You seem to misunderstand Amendment One. The American Nazi Party, the KKK, the Aryan Brotherhood, the Black Panthers, and many others hate, but so long as they don't break any laws they're not prosecuted. By anyone. Hatred alone is not prosecutable.
Concealed carry is for protection, open carry is for attention.
The just arrested a guy today for attempting to join ISIS. Last name Pugh. His intentions according to the US was to become a martyr based on his letters on his laptop. Which may be obvious to all people (well, not to a couple here) that state of mind is important in prosecuting a criminal.
Without the facts of the story, it sounds like he was arrested for a 'thought crime' since he had not actually committed any actual crime at time of arrest. Arrested for wanting to join ISIS and letters on his laptop saying he wanted to be a martyr are arrests for thought, not action. Didn't think the U.S. had any statutes against thought, but there it is.
“I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer” ― Douglas Adams
Joining a terrorist organization is a crime in the US. Especially one that lies outside the US.
Saying you want to join a terrorist organization is a thought crime, then? He hadn't joined yet, just said he planned to do so? Sounds like a though crime to me since no actual crime had been committed yet.
“I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer” ― Douglas Adams
He did a lot more than saying he wanted to join ISIS. He traveled to Turkey in attempt to enter Syria and join ISIS, (which I believe is an overt act) and he made statements of his intent. I think Egypt deported him. Lots of other statements of his intent.
Concealed carry is for protection, open carry is for attention.
You seem to misunderstand Amendment One. The American Nazi Party, the KKK, the Aryan Brotherhood, the Black Panthers, and many others hate, but so long as they don't break any laws they're not prosecuted. By anyone. Hatred alone is not prosecutable.
And you seem to misunderstand that prosecuting somebody (Read: enhancing their sentence) for a 'hate crime' IS prosecuting them for hating. You feeling that something is okay doesn't make it so...wrong is still wrong. You're saying that giving somebody a stronger/longer/harder/whatever sentence because they 'hated' their victim is not only okay, but should be expected AND accepted. I'm saying you're flat out wrong. Convict the crime, ignore the reason.
Incidentally, what part of the First amendment allows for prosecuting somebody for thinking bad things? :silly:
"Bipartisan" usually means that a bigger than normal deception is happening.
George Carlin
Replies
Pretty much that. And charging something as a hate crime is impossible to prove on it's face unless the person said something before the act. Without something either expressed verbally or in writing, it is impossible to know what is in a persons mind, or what they were thinking short of them testifying against themselves. The act committed, in and of itself, gives no clue to the mindset of the perpetrator, and anyone saying they can prove this mindset without a look into the persons motive, either by verbal or written evidence, is just blowing smoke up somebody's skirt.
Calling the Nazi extermination a hate crime is only scratching the surface. Ever heard of Eugenics? The Nazis were practicing that to it's logical conclusion to produce their "Master Race". And the hands of the U.S. were by no means clean of that during the same time period. Pot, meet kettle.
http://histclo.com/essay/war/ww2/cou/ger/w2g-eug.html
http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/1796
― Douglas Adams
Simple is good, Gene. Simple is liberating. What you call 'law' is nothing more than a collection of rules put together by folks intentionally complicating matters to differentiate between people. You want to know what the opposite of unusually simplistic is? Overly complicated. When did simplification become a bad thing?
That 'law', custom or you don't support my view on this matter concerns me not in the least.
As to 'inferring deeper purpose' to a crime: Who gets to decide? What criteria will they use to decide? At what point do we say that hating 'this much' is okay, but don't cross that line because we'll bring out the hate hammer? Maybe you're comfortable with that sort of thing, I sure as hell am not.
George Carlin
As to who decides, a jury would decide. That's the way it's been in the US since the Constitution.
Never claimed to be a lawyer, so put down the crack pipe.
And if YOU or the LAW presume to know what is/was in someone's mind at the time a crime was committed, then I presume that you have these two essential items to divine what is in their heads without any written or oral evidence provided by them or reliable witnesses.
I'll patiently wait while you trot out your exceptional mind reading abilities and tell me what I'm thinking at 13:49 hours on 3/17/2015.
― Douglas Adams
In the real world (Zulu Time Zone), would that not be nearly ten to seven on the evening of the 17/3/2015. :angel2:
I did use common sense, an ability you obviously lack.
― Douglas Adams
Don’t, I say don’t that be an oxymoron (oxymora or oxymorons).................say what , boy!
You made a funny son and nobody's laughing. :devil:
Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
Evidently a lot of little punks want to join ISIS if they get to behead people. I guess it's kind of like me asking Mormons if I can have a new 16 year old every 10 years if I join.
Paddle faster!!! I hear banjos.
Reason for editing: correcting my auto correct
― Douglas Adams
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAbzlj3nf4E
THE WHO LYRICS
"The Seeker"
I looked under chairs
I looked under tables
I'm tryin to find the key
To fifty million fables
They call me the seeker
I been searchin low and high
I wont get to get what I'm after
Till the day I die
I asked bobby dylan
I asked the beatles
I asked timothy leary
But he couldn't help me either
They call me the seeker
I been searchin low and high
I wont get to get what I'm after
Till the day I die
People tend to hate me
Cuz I never smile
As I ransack their homes
They wanna shake my hand
Focusing on nowhere
Investigating miles
I'm a seeker I'm a really desperate man
I wont get to get what I'm after
Till the day I die
I learned to raise my voice in anger
Yeah but look at my face ain't this a smile
I'm happy when life's good and when its bad I cry
I got values but I don't know how or why
I'm lookin for me
You're lookin for you
Were lookin at each other and we don't know what to do
They call me the seeker
I been searchin low and high
I wont get to get what I'm after
Till the day I die
Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
MOODY BLUES LYRICS
"Legend Of A Mind"
Timothy Leary's dead.
No, no, no, no, He's outside looking in.
Timothy Leary's dead.
No, no, no, no, He's outside looking in.
He'll fly his astral plane,
Takes you trips around the bay,
Brings you back the same day,
Timothy Leary. Timothy Leary.
Timothy Leary's dead.
No, no, no, no, He's outside looking in.
Timothy Leary's dead.
No, no, no, no, He's outside looking in.
He'll fly his astral plane,
Takes you trips around the bay,
Brings you back the same day,
Timothy Leary. Timothy Leary.
Along the coast you'll hear them boast
About a light they say that shines so clear.
So raise your glass, we'll drink a toast
To the little man who sells you thrills along the pier.
He'll take you up, he'll bring you down,
He'll plant your feet back firmly on the ground.
He flies so high, he swoops so low,
He knows exactly which way he's gonna go.
Timothy Leary. Timothy Leary.
He'll take you up, he'll bring you down,
He'll plant your feet back on the ground.
He'll fly so high, he'll swoop so low.
Timothy Leary.
He'll fly his astral plane.
He'll take you trips around the bay.
He'll bring you back the same day.
Timothy Leary. Timothy Leary.
Timothy Leary. Timothy Leary.
Timothy Leary.
― Douglas Adams
I got your 'terms'...right here.
George Carlin
You mean he had to TELL them what his intentions were?!? Why didn't they just read his mind?
You seriously thought this was an argument in your favor??:silly:
George Carlin
I have no idea what you're talking about and don't think you do either, but I'd be willing to listen to a rational explanation.
State of mind may be used as corroborating evidence, but in and of itself, is not a crime. It might, in some cases, be enough evidence to obtain a search warrant, or together with other circumstantial evidence, good enough for an indictment. But, in no case I've heard of can a person be convicted for what he's fantasizing about doing, unless there is clear evidence that he is physically preparing to commit a crime. Hating, racial or otherwise, is not illegal unless acted upon in an illegal way.
Of course, I don't know what all the feds can prosecute a person for, by extrapolating from their hate crime laws.
I agree. You have no idea what I'm talking about.
I thought I replied to this last night, but apparently not. Here goes again: I think you might be misunderstanding what I'm saying. I am NOT saying that a person who commits a crime is innocent because we don't know his state of mind. I'm saying a criminal is not MORE GUILTY because of his/her state of mind. If you're thinking I'm wishy-washy on punishment, think again. I simply do not think that cops, prosecutors, judges, juries and or any member of this government-or any other-is any where near capable enough to fairly implement a punishment system covering a person's 'hate'. I think trying to do so is asinine.
Were the guys who dragged the gay fella behind their truck more guilty of murder because they didn't like his lifestyle? If some dudes had dragged somebody else 'just because', would they have been less guilty? If you believe this, I feel sorry for you.
George Carlin
We're talking hate crime, and you bring up a straight up robbery as an example. Do you know beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime was committed due to hate for the store owner? Where is your evidence of a crime committed for reason other than greed? Where is the evidence of the hate crime 'beyond reasonable doubt' as required by criminal prosecution that the crime was motivated totally or even partially by hate? Fail, because you can't read minds.
― Douglas Adams
The hating part wasn't the crime, only the physical violence, in all of your examples. A government that will arrest people for hating has power over the people to jail them for anything. There is no end to the way the people can be stifled if someone is allowed to define hate in any way they want to. That has already been done to a great extent, by making people afraid to tell the truth about some things because they will be called haters. The logical extension of that is to make hating, as defined by the government, a crime.
All governments are corrupt to some extent, and the ones that can prosecute people for what they can be said to think are the most corrupt and dangerous of all. When they do that, they are basically operating the same as the mafia, who killed anyone they were suspicious of, just to be safe.
Without the facts of the story, it sounds like he was arrested for a 'thought crime' since he had not actually committed any actual crime at time of arrest. Arrested for wanting to join ISIS and letters on his laptop saying he wanted to be a martyr are arrests for thought, not action. Didn't think the U.S. had any statutes against thought, but there it is.
― Douglas Adams
Saying you want to join a terrorist organization is a thought crime, then? He hadn't joined yet, just said he planned to do so? Sounds like a though crime to me since no actual crime had been committed yet.
― Douglas Adams
And you seem to misunderstand that prosecuting somebody (Read: enhancing their sentence) for a 'hate crime' IS prosecuting them for hating. You feeling that something is okay doesn't make it so...wrong is still wrong. You're saying that giving somebody a stronger/longer/harder/whatever sentence because they 'hated' their victim is not only okay, but should be expected AND accepted. I'm saying you're flat out wrong. Convict the crime, ignore the reason.
Incidentally, what part of the First amendment allows for prosecuting somebody for thinking bad things? :silly:
George Carlin