Shooting at UNC

[BraveUlysses]

Because some how you keep missing the point that this could of just been a murder and not a hate crime.

I guess you'll have to show which posts those were because neither I nor smooth said anything to that effect. I firmly believe this guy is just another murderous, insecure prick with a gun and a weak chin.

[smooth]

Because some how you keep missing the point that this could of just been a murder and not a hate crime.

I actually went backwards and read every single post in this thread to see where this occurred and I couldn't find a single instance of anyone saying this was a hate crime. What are you talking about?

[Dozyproductions]

Because some how you keep missing the point that this could of just been a murder and not a hate crime.

[BraveUlysses]

I don't think anyone is going to not call him a loon. He's obviously an insecure enough prick to show his concealed carry pistol in an effort to intimidate his neighbors.

In regards to your second comment, I'm not sure exactly how you keep missing the point on this, no that wouldn't be a hate crime.

[Dozyproductions]

Can we agree on one thing? That this guy was a loon? They didn't allow him to call to tow away people from parking spots anymore because he did it too many times. He was obsessive.

People shoot other people for road rage. So what happens if it's a white person shooting a muslim in an instance like that? Instantly a hate crime? Or a crime with hate in it?

[smooth]

unless your a minority right they are in capable of such a criminal act

minorities can and do get convicted under hate crime legislation

I'm not sure why you believe otherwise

You guys really need to learn that mrsleeve doesn't know what he's talking about. He posts so much drivel in this forum it's pathetic.

Although “hate-crime” legislation has been championed by minority groups in hopes it would discourage racially motivated crime, a recently released FBI crime report reveals that a higher percentage of blacks than whites are charged with race-biased “hate crimes.”

The FBI’s “Hate Crime Statistics” for 1999 show that 2,030 whites were arrested that year for “hate crimes” against blacks, compared to 524 blacks who were arrested and charged with a “hate crime” against whites.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, blacks make up 12.8 percent of the population — or about 35.4 million of the country’s 280 million people — so, given the arrest rate versus population percentage, the data indicates that blacks are one-and-a-half times more likely to be arrested for a “hate crime” than whites.

--http://www.wnd.com/2001/03/8380/

[smooth]

Indeed, a murder is defined by malice, which is a form of hatred.

Perhaps the confusing part is that the legislation is called "hate crime" and that's somewhat of a misnomer. What hate crime legislation intends to regulate is crime that is motivated beyond the initial, or primary, victim.

When you look at it like that you can understand that enhancements should be made when the action escalates.


This is entirely consistent with all of our other laws and history of punishment.


Hurt someone unintentionally -- lowest form of violence

Hurt someone intentionally -- next level of violence, slightly more punishment

Hurt someone with intention to kill them without any specific modifiers -- nearly highest level of violence, nearly most severe punishment

Hurt someone with intention to kill them with "aggravating factors" -- highest level of violence, most severe punishment [factors include: heinous/cruel violence, if the victim was a police officer, premeditated]

Hurt someone intentionally based on certain characteristics that have historically been discriminated against -- punished more severely than a single target victim because it harms more than the primary victim

[characteristics listed in Penal Code 422.55 (in California)]

(a) "Hate crime" means a criminal act committed, in whole or in
part, because of one or more of the following actual or perceived
characteristics of the victim:
(1) Disability.
(2) Gender.
(3) Nationality.
(4) Race or ethnicity.
(5) Religion.
(6) Sexual orientation.
(7) Association with a person or group with one or more of these
actual or perceived characteristics.

Our law already recognizes that if we kill a gay man, but don't know he's gay, and we killed him accidentally that should be punished less severely than if we kill the gay guy on purpose.

Does it not make sense to you that we want to punish someone more severely if they intend to kill someone versus just driving too fast and hit someone on accident and kill a person? The killer who intends to harm others is more dangerous to society than the person who simply made a poor choice.

If the gay guy happens to be a cop then the crime becomes capital murder--punishable by death. Or if we the gay guy while robbing a bank it can be punishable by death. If we kill him in a particularly cruel manner that is worse than simply killing him quickly. Do you want our law to ignore the distinction between killing someone quickly and torturing someone to death?

We already understand that the thought processes behind crimes do indeed, and always have, impacted the level of sentencing. I'm not sure why people ignore this fact when they discuss hate crime legislation. Justice has *never* in the entire history of human society ignored the reasons someone does the behavior. The reason for someone's behavior has always had an effect on the sentence imposed.


As I wrote earlier, when someone intentionally targets the gay man to kill him for no other reason than him being gay, that not only harms the gay person who was killed but it also produces harm in the community.

This is not discrimination of the name of equality. Now you're just slinging catch phrases around that don't even have any meaning in this discussion. What do you even mean by that? Hate crime legislation are not intending to stop discrimination--they are factoring in the extra level of harm that is done to the community.

Just like if you steal a purse that is punished more severely than if you steal a candy bar--the level of harm is factored into the sentence.

Just like if you steal a purse with a gun that is punished more severely than if you simply take something when no one is looking--the level of harm is factored into the sentence.

When you hurt someone directly that's one level of severity.

Why would you ignore that a crime directed at a target based on specific factors that produce an additional harm in the community is a different level of harm than simply targeting an individual?

Why would you argue that the harm directed at the primary target should be punished but the harm directed at secondary targets should not be punished? How does that make sense given the history of punishment, why we punish, and the fact that any harm to society needs to be punished.


Hate crime legislation is not punishing to restore social equality; sentencing enhancements are accounting for the collateral damage inflicted on the community by the crime

[mrsleeve]

unless your a minority right they are in capable of such a criminal act

[Dozyproductions]

What is the difference between an accidental killing versus a planned killing if it is *not* intent?

Both of you seem to misunderstand what "blind justice" means. It obviously does not mean justice should be blind to the factors of a crime...

Good on yeah with those terms! I was totally confusing myself there. (It is 2 am after all ;) ). But still 'hate crime' = crime = crime. Throwing the 'justice is blind' term like a cheap hooker because its my opinion and my preference.

Some guy can kill gays because they're gay but he's still killing people. Shouldn't we have proper punishment for that? It's discriminatory to say otherwise and such laws only make sense in order to safeguard the 'all men are created equal' creed from government encroachment. Discrimination in the name for equality is still discrimination. Weird that this is the subject we're having this discussion on.

To come back to this shooting. All willful murder is backed by hate. So all such murder is indeed a hate crime. Some what of a point I've been trying to make.

[smooth]

187. (a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a
fetus, with malice aforethought.
(b) This section shall not apply to any person who commits an act
that results in the death of a fetus if any of the following apply:


188. Such malice may be express or implied. It is express when
there is manifested a deliberate intention unlawfully to take away
the life of a fellow creature. It is implied, when no considerable
provocation appears, or when the circumstances attending the killing
show an abandoned and malignant heart.
When it is shown that the killing resulted from the intentional
doing of an act with express or implied malice as defined above, no
other mental state need be shown to establish the mental state of
malice aforethought. Neither an awareness of the obligation to act
within the general body of laws regulating society nor acting despite
such awareness is included within the definition of malice.



189. All murder which is perpetrated by means of a destructive
device or explosive, a weapon of mass destruction, knowing use of
ammunition designed primarily to penetrate metal or armor, poison,
lying in wait, torture, or by any other kind of willful, deliberate,
and premeditated killing, or which is committed in the perpetration
of, or attempt to perpetrate, arson, rape, carjacking, robbery,
burglary, mayhem, kidnapping, train wrecking, or any act punishable
under Section 206, 286, 288, 288a, or 289, or any murder which is
perpetrated by means of discharging a firearm from a motor vehicle,
intentionally at another person outside of the vehicle with the
intent to inflict death, is murder of the first degree. All other
kinds of murders are of the second degree.

192. Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without
malice. It is of three kinds:
(a) Voluntary--upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion.
(b) Involuntary--in the commission of an unlawful act, not
amounting to a felony; or in the commission of a lawful act which
might produce death, in an unlawful manner, or without due caution
and circumspection. This subdivision shall not apply to acts
committed in the driving of a vehicle.
(c) Vehicular--

-- -- http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/di...0&file=187-199

[smooth]

Well I guess that's where I see it differently. If there should be a difference between murder and manslaughter, it should be between accidental (if that's even a thing) and premeditated. Saying that one intent is worse than another is prejudiced... Kind of goes back to Jalopi's 'execution of the law' argument since justice should be blind.

What is the difference between an accidental killing versus a planned killing if it is *not* intent?

Both of you seem to misunderstand what "blind justice" means. It obviously does not mean justice should be blind to the factors of a crime...

[Dozyproductions]

a pre-meditated murder intends to target the victim whereas a pre-meditated hate crime intends to target the community the victim comes from

some people argue against hate crime because we shouldn't legislate "intent"
however, the difference between pre-meditated murder and manslaughter is the "intent" where "intent" enhances the penalty

Well I guess that's where I see it differently. If there should be a difference between murder and manslaughter, it should be between accidental (if that's even a thing) and premeditated. Saying that one intent is worse than another is prejudiced... Kind of goes back to Jalopi's 'execution of the law' argument since justice should be blind.

[smooth]

What's the difference between a pre meditated murder vs a pre meditated hate crime murder? Crime = crime and justice is blind right?

a pre-meditated murder intends to target the victim whereas a pre-meditated hate crime intends to target the community the victim comes from

some people argue against hate crime because we shouldn't legislate "intent"
however, the difference between pre-meditated murder and manslaughter is the "intent" where "intent" enhances the penalty

[Dozyproductions]

Your entire example demonstrates that you don't actually have a firm grasp of why hate crime laws were written. They are not about one individual to another, oppressor to oppressed, one person hates another, etc.

Hate crime legislation is intended to curtail hate-based crimes that impact the *community* collaterally. When someone kills a homosexual or an african-american the rest of the members of those minority communities are threatened, endangered, and damaged; hence the extra punishments.

When a minority harms a non-minority, the same history of damage does not exist and the same collateral damage is not felt throughout the community.

To use your specific example, Jews harming Nazis is not a historical fact and pattern. When a one-off situation like that occurs, the entire population of Nazis do not shudder behind their doors worried about who might be next.

I'd agree with Jalopi on a certain point. I'd understand such laws, lets say, to combat government sponsored hate crimes, but beyond that it's all a mater of the execution of the law. What's the difference between a pre meditated murder vs a pre meditated hate crime murder? Crime = crime and justice is blind right?

[BraveUlysses]

So your saying, minorities by definition are incapable of committing a hate crime no matter their stance or stated reasoning for the crime (even if they targeted a whitey because they are a whitey) and only white people are capable of committing a hate crime.......

Do you not see contradiction and out right lunacy of your position, but this is on par for what I expect form you

No, he's not saying that. Your inability to read, comprehend and then post rears its head again.