Quote: @suncoastvike said:
Not that I want to wade in these waters. However hate does exist. There's no need to manufacture it. What this guy did was diminish the real hate. So that said. I've never been a supporter of "hate crime" laws. They reclassify already existing anger. To what point? Two guys get into a fight. They happen to be of different ethnicity. In heat words are exchanged. That can get reclassified. Oh there was hate going on but most fights do. So what's the point. If someone shoots up a church or temple it's mass murder. Reclassification only gives credit to the hate. We have issues in this country. The media on both sides fuel it. Conservative media funnels every rape/murder by illegals to their front page. Tell their local affiliates, send us all your stories like this. Every cop killed every rape...ect. The liberal media does the same. Send us every cop beating. Every video of what appears to be an unwarranted shooting. We will run our agenda.
It's why I've never been less "informed" in my life. It's why I never turn on the news. It's why I can't get past the titles and actually read any of these articles. The less I'm " informed" the better I feel and probably better for it.
This guy just handed a huge weapon to one side. That's not what's important here. The reasons both sides of the media work so hard to find these "credible" stories is the real news here.
Fair post, so I will only take issue with your questioning the need for hate crime laws. The reason they have tougher consequences is because they target a group of people. They have impact on an entire community, an entire country if left unchecked.
For example, if I shoot someone because cut me off in traffic it doesn't impact the community or law enforcement as much as if I shot him because he's gay or black or Jewish or Muslim. Am I an extremist? Am I involved with some sort of group planning additional attacks? Are like-minded members of the community going to be inspired by what I did? It's a lot like terrorism. If someone blows up a building because he was fired that won't (nor should it) draw the same response from law enforcement as if he blew it up because he admires ISIS. The line is blurred. What Dylann Roof did. Was that a hate crime or domestic terrorism? Both maybe? Doesn't really matter. Both have higher consequences for the exact same reason.
And those who argue that hate crimes don't work in reverse, they do. There was a group of black kids recently who were prosecuted for a hate crime after they beat up a white kid.
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@ suncoastvike said:
Not that I want to wade in these waters. However hate does exist. There's no need to manufacture it. What this guy did was diminish the real hate. So that said. I've never been a supporter of "hate crime" laws. They reclassify already existing anger. To what point? Two guys get into a fight. They happen to be of different ethnicity. In heat words are exchanged. That can get reclassified. Oh there was hate going on but most fights do. So what's the point. If someone shoots up a church or temple it's mass murder. Reclassification only gives credit to the hate. We have issues in this country. The media on both sides fuel it. Conservative media funnels every rape/murder by illegals to their front page. Tell their local affiliates, send us all your stories like this. Every cop killed every rape...ect. The liberal media does the same. Send us every cop beating. Every video of what appears to be an unwarranted shooting. We will run our agenda.
It's why I've never been less "informed" in my life. It's why I never turn on the news. It's why I can't get past the titles and actually read any of these articles. The less I'm " informed" the better I feel and probably better for it.
This guy just handed a huge weapon to one side. That's not what's important here. The reasons both sides of the media work so hard to find these "credible" stories is the real news here.
Fair post, so I will only take issue with your questioning the need for hate crime laws. The reason they have tougher consequences is because they target a group of people. They have impact on an entire community, an entire country if left unchecked.
Violence of any kind whether we name it or not does.
For example, if I shoot someone because cut me off in traffic it doesn't impact the community or law enforcement as much as if I shot him because he's gay or black or Jewish or Muslim. Am I an extremist? Am I involved with some sort of group planning additional attacks? Are like-minded members of the community going to be inspired by what I did? It's a lot like terrorism. If someone blows up a building because he was fired that won't (nor should it) draw the same response from law enforcement as if he blew it up because he admires ISIS. The line is blurred. What Dylann Roof did. Was that a hate crime or domestic terrorism? Both maybe? Doesn't really matter. Both have higher consequences for the exact same reason.
If you are targeting a group based on race, religion or just politics that is terrorism. That should he handled at the Federal level. As you say already has higher consequences because of that.
And those who argue that hate crimes don't work in reverse, they do. There was a group of black kids recently who were prosecuted for a hate crime after they beat up a white kid.
I never argue that it doesn't work reverse or otherwise. I believe it does work many times. It can be abused to by over zealous prosecutors.
I just don't like things being named before they are tried in court.
I also don't like mandatory minimums. I like the facts and circumstances of each case to be desided at trial. I understand all these things are usually put in place because we don't like outcomes at trial or judges decisions. Bad judge remove him/her. Don't tie the hands of all judges. I for one believe most cases the judges and juries get them right. If there was aggregating circumstances of the guy being a racist. That can be handled at sentencing.
Quote: @suncoastvike said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ suncoastvike said:
Not that I want to wade in these waters. However hate does exist. There's no need to manufacture it. What this guy did was diminish the real hate. So that said. I've never been a supporter of "hate crime" laws. They reclassify already existing anger. To what point? Two guys get into a fight. They happen to be of different ethnicity. In heat words are exchanged. That can get reclassified. Oh there was hate going on but most fights do. So what's the point. If someone shoots up a church or temple it's mass murder. Reclassification only gives credit to the hate. We have issues in this country. The media on both sides fuel it. Conservative media funnels every rape/murder by illegals to their front page. Tell their local affiliates, send us all your stories like this. Every cop killed every rape...ect. The liberal media does the same. Send us every cop beating. Every video of what appears to be an unwarranted shooting. We will run our agenda.
It's why I've never been less "informed" in my life. It's why I never turn on the news. It's why I can't get past the titles and actually read any of these articles. The less I'm " informed" the better I feel and probably better for it.
This guy just handed a huge weapon to one side. That's not what's important here. The reasons both sides of the media work so hard to find these "credible" stories is the real news here.
Fair post, so I will only take issue with your questioning the need for hate crime laws. The reason they have tougher consequences is because they target a group of people. They have impact on an entire community, an entire country if left unchecked.
Violence of any kind whether we name it or not does.
For example, if I shoot someone because cut me off in traffic it doesn't impact the community or law enforcement as much as if I shot him because he's gay or black or Jewish or Muslim. Am I an extremist? Am I involved with some sort of group planning additional attacks? Are like-minded members of the community going to be inspired by what I did? It's a lot like terrorism. If someone blows up a building because he was fired that won't (nor should it) draw the same response from law enforcement as if he blew it up because he admires ISIS. The line is blurred. What Dylann Roof did. Was that a hate crime or domestic terrorism? Both maybe? Doesn't really matter. Both have higher consequences for the exact same reason.
If you are targeting a group based on race, religion or just politics that is terrorism. That should he handled at the Federal level. As you say already has higher consequences because of that.
And those who argue that hate crimes don't work in reverse, they do. There was a group of black kids recently who were prosecuted for a hate crime after they beat up a white kid.
I never argue that it doesn't work reverse or otherwise. I believe it does work many times. It can be abused to by over zealous prosecutors.
I just don't like things being named before they are tried in court.
I also don't like mandatory minimums. I like the facts and circumstances of each case to be desided at trial. I understand all these things are usually put in place because we don't like outcomes at trial or judges decisions. Bad judge remove him/her. Don't tie the hands of all judges. I for one believe most cases the judges and juries get them right. If there was aggregating circumstances of the guy being a racist. That can be handled at sentencing.
Well I couldn't agree more with that. Mandatory mins is one of the biggest shit-fer-brains ideas in the history of this country. It came about because of "tough on crime" nonsense. Every case is different and if you're not allowing judges to consider nuances in each case, then what the hell are they there for?
Regarding your violence comment, I don't agree. Spontaneous violence that erupts as a result of road rage, or because of a sporting event, or a domestic dispute, doesn't have the same dangerous societal impact as violence that erupts due to hate of a particular group of people.
Quote: @MaroonBells said
@ suncoastvike said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ suncoastvike said:
Not that I want to wade in these waters. However hate does exist. There's no need to manufacture it. What this guy did was diminish the real hate. So that said. I've never been a supporter of "hate crime" laws. They reclassify already existing anger. To what point? Two guys get into a fight. They happen to be of different ethnicity. In heat words are exchanged. That can get reclassified. Oh there was hate going on but most fights do. So what's the point. If someone shoots up a church or temple it's mass murder. Reclassification only gives credit to the hate. We have issues in this country. The media on both sides fuel it. Conservative media funnels every rape/murder by illegals to their front page. Tell their local affiliates, send us all your stories like this. Every cop killed every rape...ect. The liberal media does the same. Send us every cop beating. Every video of what appears to be an unwarranted shooting. We will run our agenda.
It's why I've never been less "informed" in my life. It's why I never turn on the news. It's why I can't get past the titles and actually read any of these articles. The less I'm " informed" the better I feel and probably better for it.
This guy just handed a huge weapon to one side. That's not what's important here. The reasons both sides of the media work so hard to find these "credible" stories is the real news here.
Fair post, so I will only take issue with your questioning the need for hate crime laws. The reason they have tougher consequences is because they target a group of people. They have impact on an entire community, an entire country if left unchecked.
Violence of any kind whether we name it or not does.
For example, if I shoot someone because cut me off in traffic it doesn't impact the community or law enforcement as much as if I shot him because he's gay or black or Jewish or Muslim. Am I an extremist? Am I involved with some sort of group planning additional attacks? Are like-minded members of the community going to be inspired by what I did? It's a lot like terrorism. If someone blows up a building because he was fired that won't (nor should it) draw the same response from law enforcement as if he blew it up because he admires ISIS. The line is blurred. What Dylann Roof did. Was that a hate crime or domestic terrorism? Both maybe? Doesn't really matter. Both have higher consequences for the exact same reason.
If you are targeting a group based on race, religion or just politics that is terrorism. That should he handled at the Federal level. As you say already has higher consequences because of that.
And those who argue that hate crimes don't work in reverse, they do. There was a group of black kids recently who were prosecuted for a hate crime after they beat up a white kid.
I never argue that it doesn't work reverse or otherwise. I believe it does work many times. It can be abused to by over zealous prosecutors.
I just don't like things being named before they are tried in court.
I also don't like mandatory minimums. I like the facts and circumstances of each case to be desided at trial. I understand all these things are usually put in place because we don't like outcomes at trial or judges decisions. Bad judge remove him/her. Don't tie the hands of all judges. I for one believe most cases the judges and juries get them right. If there was aggregating circumstances of the guy being a racist. That can be handled at sentencing.
Well I couldn't agree more with that. Mandatory mins is one of the biggest shit-fer-brains ideas in the history of this country. It came about because of "tough on crime" nonsense. Every case is different and if you're not allowing judges to consider nuances in each case, then what the hell are they there for?
Regarding your violence comment, I don't agree. Spontaneous violence that erupts as a result of road rage, or because of a sporting event, or a domestic dispute, doesn't have the same dangerous societal impact as violence that erupts due to hate of a particular group of people.
My take on violence as it relates to whether it was racially, religion or lifestyle is. Well that's the motive then. So let it be the motive. The prosecutor has proved motive. Important1st step toward conviction. Then he can agian bring it up at the sentencing. I doubt many judges would not allow a persons obvious hatred towards a group not be allowed. If he did he's one of the bad ones. I know there are some.
Don't see anyone doubling down on his innocence and wanting elect him president.
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
Fair post, so I will only take issue with your questioning the need for hate crime laws. The reason they have tougher consequences is because they target a group of people. They have impact on an entire community, an entire country if left unchecked.
For example, if I shoot someone because cut me off in traffic it doesn't impact the community or law enforcement as much as if I shot him because he's gay or black or Jewish or Muslim. Am I an extremist? Am I involved with some sort of group planning additional attacks? Are like-minded members of the community going to be inspired by what I did? It's a lot like terrorism. If someone blows up a building because he was fired that won't (nor should it) draw the same response from law enforcement as if he blew it up because he admires ISIS. The line is blurred. What Dylann Roof did. Was that a hate crime or domestic terrorism? Both maybe? Doesn't really matter. Both have higher consequences for the exact same reason.
And those who argue that hate crimes don't work in reverse, they do. There was a group of black kids recently who were prosecuted for a hate crime after they beat up a white kid.
Just curious about your thought processes, do you view
Jussie Smollet’s crime as a hate crime, where he’s filled with hate for a group
and tried to attack that group of people with false accusations? Is his accusations more or less threatening
than someone painting a swastika on a building? This is a pretty big impact to the community and country.
Alternate media was all over the details around this. The MSM was very silent.
It wasnt until TMZ, of all places, began running stories with police statements that the MSM was bothered to breathe any life into this story or the truth. TMZ basically confirmed what a lot of alt. news sites were reporting.
It bothers me that major news sources can sit on important information just to control the narrative. Its so crazy - for me it transcends a lot of important issues we all face because we can't actually address anything with this type of news coverage.
... your telling me no one for CNN, Fox News, ABC, CBS or NBC could be bothered to contact local police while this was developing? I doubt that when TMZ can...
Im sitting here wondering where this story would be if TMZ didnt run police quotes in an overvelous attempt to get in on celebrity gossip. Its almost as if MSM knew what the police were saying and didnt want to give them a national voice. Once the police got it through TMZ everything about this case changed. We went from an extended silence to an arrest real fast...
Yea, I have heard more about this Smollet thing then the Coast Guard nut-job who was planning an attack. I also haven't seen much media on the Voting fraud that took place in North Carolina. The media does need to do a better job of reporting for sure!
Quote: @medaille said:
@ MaroonBells said:
Fair post, so I will only take issue with your questioning the need for hate crime laws. The reason they have tougher consequences is because they target a group of people. They have impact on an entire community, an entire country if left unchecked.
For example, if I shoot someone because cut me off in traffic it doesn't impact the community or law enforcement as much as if I shot him because he's gay or black or Jewish or Muslim. Am I an extremist? Am I involved with some sort of group planning additional attacks? Are like-minded members of the community going to be inspired by what I did? It's a lot like terrorism. If someone blows up a building because he was fired that won't (nor should it) draw the same response from law enforcement as if he blew it up because he admires ISIS. The line is blurred. What Dylann Roof did. Was that a hate crime or domestic terrorism? Both maybe? Doesn't really matter. Both have higher consequences for the exact same reason.
And those who argue that hate crimes don't work in reverse, they do. There was a group of black kids recently who were prosecuted for a hate crime after they beat up a white kid.
Just curious about your thought processes, do you view
Jussie Smollet’s crime as a hate crime, where he’s filled with hate for a group
and tried to attack that group of people with false accusations? Is his accusations more or less threatening
than someone painting a swastika on a building? This is a pretty big impact to the community and country.
I think it could be argued that it is. The worst part of what he did is that he made "white victimization," the bullshit narrative written by white nationalists and made it appear legitimate. Bigots everywhere are celebrating this. He owes every victim of a hate crime an apology. Too many people in this country want to argue that racism just isn't a thing anymore, or that it's OK to beat up gay kids or harrass Muslims. He should go right to fucking jail and they can throw away the key as far as I'm concerned.
Quote: @minny65 said:
Yea, I have heard more about this Smollet thing then the Coast Guard nut-job who was planning an attack. I also haven't seen much media on the Voting fraud that took place in North Carolina. The media does need to do a better job of reporting for sure!
...and that's exactly my point. Like I said, bigots everywhere love this Smollet thing. I haven't paid much attention to the news lately, but I'm guessing this is all over right wing media, yeah? Of course it is. It supports what they've been saying all along: "White American Males are the REAL victims."
Meanwhile, Coast Guard what nationalist who wanted to "kill every last person on earth" is back page stuff.
|
