New York immigrant dead in apparent hate crime

[HAL 9000 96]

Hate crime legislation is targeted to combat the motive authorship of a hate crime.

Much like the death penalty is legislated to combat the motive authorship of murder.

You, as a white American, are not subject to having a cross burned in your front yard. Enough said.

That's what they want you to think. The legislation is created to favor minority groups, which are strong among Democrats. Just the way that Republicans pander to corporations. It's no different.

It creates an inequality in the law, which under the equal protection clause, 14th amendment, is unconstitutional.

Regardless of how you or I feel about a cross burning on someone's property, regardless of the victim, the action is still arson, and perhaps damage to property.

Just because a minority(hate group) wishes to hate another group, that doesn't give the State any right to come in and create an inequality in an attempt to engineer our society. It doesn't work. It never will.

Yeah like I told you, I'm not disagreeing that the nature of the crime should be punished any differently... but most definitely the existence of inequalities that create the hate as a motivating factor is enough indeed- at least in my opinion, and in the opinion of what I think is a majority of the constituencies around the country- minority groups being targeted and all other segments of the population... that once the inequalities cease to exist completely, then perhaps the stupidity that leads to the motives will also diminish to a point that can be considered nonexistent.

Then we can do away with these laws. As for constitutionality and the 14th Amendment... its open definitely to whatever interpretation you may want to give it. Much like Amendments are added to include all kinds of clauses permitting and outlawing all kinds of behavior.

Don't know how you come to that conclusion about pandering and more so legislative intent... but whatever. With this kind of thing its not really pandering to write laws that promote a civil, orderly society devoid of stupid divisiveness that most arguably has a root in very real history...

Lucky for all involved, although we do see waxing and waning of these kinds of hate-fueled crimes, I am of the thinking that they are slowly less and less (minus the increased reporting factor as time goes by) each year. Meaning one day, these laws will be obsolete.

[Ban Hammer 13,367]

I believe the problem is that two completely legal acts (hating someone because of their race and using slurs), committed during an illegal act, may end up making him serve more time in prison than if he had committed the illegal act alone.

so if you feel the need to kick someone's azz, don't say anything while doing so.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I guess we could think about motives- stupid as they may be. Take out the anti- component of it and you likely don't have much of a motive to commit murder. Hence, hate.

Well let's not even talk murder. Let's talk simple assault.

Why would a punishment vary depending upon what color/sexual orientation you identify with?

This is a prime example of a law that creates an inequality.

While it's not right to assualt someone of another sexual orientation, it's not right to assualt anyone. Favoring groups with increased punishment towards their offenders, only creates more inequality, and group segregation.

Because singling someone out someone on the basis of their ethnicity, sexuality etc is deemed a crime in itself. I believe the thinking behind it is that crimes targetting a specifically identified group terrorises members of that community.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Hate crime legislation is targeted to combat the motive authorship of a hate crime.

Much like the death penalty is legislated to combat the motive authorship of murder.

You, as a white American, are not subject to having a cross burned in your front yard. Enough said.

That's what they want you to think. The legislation is created to favor minority groups, which are strong among Democrats. Just the way that Republicans pander to corporations. It's no different.

It creates an inequality in the law, which under the equal protection clause, 14th amendment, is unconstitutional.

Regardless of how you or I feel about a cross burning on someone's property, regardless of the victim, the action is still arson, and perhaps damage to property.

Just because a minority(hate group) wishes to hate another group, that doesn't give the State any right to come in and create an inequality in an attempt to engineer our society. It doesn't work. It never will.

It isn't arson though - for it to be arson you would need to set fire to the person's house, car or property. Putting a burning cross on a law - isn't arson unless it sets the house on fire.

Believe it or not - Its not only crimes against minorities that have laws that take into account the intent and context of a crime in addition to the crime itself - stalking laws being the most obvious example.

If some obsessed person hangs the family cat from your porch, do you think they should be charged simply with animal cruelty or for the fact that they are terrorising your family by making threats against them.

[mRx 16]

Hate crime legislation is targeted to combat the motive authorship of a hate crime.

Much like the death penalty is legislated to combat the motive authorship of murder.

You, as a white American, are not subject to having a cross burned in your front yard. Enough said.

That's what they want you to think. The legislation is created to favor minority groups, which are strong among Democrats. Just the way that Republicans pander to corporations. It's no different.

It creates an inequality in the law, which under the equal protection clause, 14th amendment, is unconstitutional.

Regardless of how you or I feel about a cross burning on someone's property, regardless of the victim, the action is still arson, and perhaps damage to property.

Just because a minority(hate group) wishes to hate another group, that doesn't give the State any right to come in and create an inequality in an attempt to engineer our society. It doesn't work. It never will.

It isn't arson though - for it to be arson you would need to set fire to the person's house, car or property. Putting a burning cross on a law - isn't arson unless it sets the house on fire.

Believe it or not - Its not only crimes against minorities that have laws that take into account the intent and context of a crime in addition to the crime itself - stalking laws being the most obvious example.

If some obsessed person hangs the family cat from your porch, do you think they should be charged simply with animal cruelty or for the fact that they are terrorising your family by making threats against them.

Well, stalking and terrorizing are crimes, completely independent of federally legislated hate crimes. I should've included that in what I said about burning crosses. But I am only trying to separate the crime from the specific group of the victim, because what group the victim belongs is irrelevant to the punishment of the crime. And frankly, I disagree with additional punishments based solely on minority, which is in essence, what a hate crime is. It is an inbalance of justice to those who do not fall under the same equal protection of hate crimes.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Hate crime legislation is targeted to combat the motive authorship of a hate crime.

Much like the death penalty is legislated to combat the motive authorship of murder.

You, as a white American, are not subject to having a cross burned in your front yard. Enough said.

That's what they want you to think. The legislation is created to favor minority groups, which are strong among Democrats. Just the way that Republicans pander to corporations. It's no different.

It creates an inequality in the law, which under the equal protection clause, 14th amendment, is unconstitutional.

Regardless of how you or I feel about a cross burning on someone's property, regardless of the victim, the action is still arson, and perhaps damage to property.

Just because a minority(hate group) wishes to hate another group, that doesn't give the State any right to come in and create an inequality in an attempt to engineer our society. It doesn't work. It never will.

It isn't arson though - for it to be arson you would need to set fire to the person's house, car or property. Putting a burning cross on a law - isn't arson unless it sets the house on fire.

Believe it or not - Its not only crimes against minorities that have laws that take into account the intent and context of a crime in addition to the crime itself - stalking laws being the most obvious example.

If some obsessed person hangs the family cat from your porch, do you think they should be charged simply with animal cruelty or for the fact that they are terrorising your family by making threats against them.

Well, stalking and terrorizing are crimes, completely independent of federally legislated hate crimes. I should've included that in what I said about burning crosses. But I am only trying to separate the crime from the specific group of the victim, because what group the victim belongs is irrelevant to the punishment of the crime. And frankly, I disagree with additional punishments based solely on minority, which is in essence, what a hate crime is. It is an inbalance of justice to those who do not fall under the same equal protection of hate crimes.

Well I'm not sure that there should necessarily be different classes of offence for hate crimes - as the judge has some leeway anyway as far as sentencing goes to take the crime into account.

But again - its not difficult to see that context is important when it comes to determining what is or isnt' a crime. If you killed someone - there's a whole slew of things you could be charged with, it wouldn't automatically be murder 1.

[mRx 16]

Hate crime legislation is targeted to combat the motive authorship of a hate crime.

Much like the death penalty is legislated to combat the motive authorship of murder.

You, as a white American, are not subject to having a cross burned in your front yard. Enough said.

That's what they want you to think. The legislation is created to favor minority groups, which are strong among Democrats. Just the way that Republicans pander to corporations. It's no different.

It creates an inequality in the law, which under the equal protection clause, 14th amendment, is unconstitutional.

Regardless of how you or I feel about a cross burning on someone's property, regardless of the victim, the action is still arson, and perhaps damage to property.

Just because a minority(hate group) wishes to hate another group, that doesn't give the State any right to come in and create an inequality in an attempt to engineer our society. It doesn't work. It never will.

It isn't arson though - for it to be arson you would need to set fire to the person's house, car or property. Putting a burning cross on a law - isn't arson unless it sets the house on fire.

Believe it or not - Its not only crimes against minorities that have laws that take into account the intent and context of a crime in addition to the crime itself - stalking laws being the most obvious example.

If some obsessed person hangs the family cat from your porch, do you think they should be charged simply with animal cruelty or for the fact that they are terrorising your family by making threats against them.

Well, stalking and terrorizing are crimes, completely independent of federally legislated hate crimes. I should've included that in what I said about burning crosses. But I am only trying to separate the crime from the specific group of the victim, because what group the victim belongs is irrelevant to the punishment of the crime. And frankly, I disagree with additional punishments based solely on minority, which is in essence, what a hate crime is. It is an inbalance of justice to those who do not fall under the same equal protection of hate crimes.

Well I'm not sure that there should necessarily be different classes of offence for hate crimes - as the judge has some leeway anyway as far as sentencing goes to take the crime into account.

But again - its not difficult to see that context is important when it comes to determining what is or isnt' a crime. If you killed someone - there's a whole slew of things you could be charged with, it wouldn't automatically be murder 1.

This was already discussed earlier though. The seriousness of offense, as in murder 1, 2, etc, is not based on the victim, it's based on the suspect. A hate crime is at it's core, a crime of thought. A state of bias against a certain favored group. It is an additional charge to the actual crime.

It is a blatant injustice to member's of the non favored groups, for if they are faced with the same assault from the same assailant, there pain is worth less justice in the court of law. This is precisily why I have issues with this.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Hate crime legislation is targeted to combat the motive authorship of a hate crime.

Much like the death penalty is legislated to combat the motive authorship of murder.

You, as a white American, are not subject to having a cross burned in your front yard. Enough said.

That's what they want you to think. The legislation is created to favor minority groups, which are strong among Democrats. Just the way that Republicans pander to corporations. It's no different.

It creates an inequality in the law, which under the equal protection clause, 14th amendment, is unconstitutional.

Regardless of how you or I feel about a cross burning on someone's property, regardless of the victim, the action is still arson, and perhaps damage to property.

Just because a minority(hate group) wishes to hate another group, that doesn't give the State any right to come in and create an inequality in an attempt to engineer our society. It doesn't work. It never will.

It isn't arson though - for it to be arson you would need to set fire to the person's house, car or property. Putting a burning cross on a law - isn't arson unless it sets the house on fire.

Believe it or not - Its not only crimes against minorities that have laws that take into account the intent and context of a crime in addition to the crime itself - stalking laws being the most obvious example.

If some obsessed person hangs the family cat from your porch, do you think they should be charged simply with animal cruelty or for the fact that they are terrorising your family by making threats against them.

Well, stalking and terrorizing are crimes, completely independent of federally legislated hate crimes. I should've included that in what I said about burning crosses. But I am only trying to separate the crime from the specific group of the victim, because what group the victim belongs is irrelevant to the punishment of the crime. And frankly, I disagree with additional punishments based solely on minority, which is in essence, what a hate crime is. It is an inbalance of justice to those who do not fall under the same equal protection of hate crimes.

Well I'm not sure that there should necessarily be different classes of offence for hate crimes - as the judge has some leeway anyway as far as sentencing goes to take the crime into account.

But again - its not difficult to see that context is important when it comes to determining what is or isnt' a crime. If you killed someone - there's a whole slew of things you could be charged with, it wouldn't automatically be murder 1.

This was already discussed earlier though. The seriousness of offense, as in murder 1, 2, etc, is not based on the victim, it's based on the suspect. A hate crime is at it's core, a crime of thought. A state of bias against a certain favored group. It is an additional charge to the actual crime.

It is a blatant injustice to member's of the non favored groups, for if they are faced with the same assault from the same assailant, there pain is worth less justice in the court of law. This is precisily why I have issues with this.

But theoretically - hispanics or blacks gangs singling out and attacking whites on the basis of race would be subject to the same treatment.

[mRx 16]

Hate crime legislation is targeted to combat the motive authorship of a hate crime.

Much like the death penalty is legislated to combat the motive authorship of murder.

You, as a white American, are not subject to having a cross burned in your front yard. Enough said.

That's what they want you to think. The legislation is created to favor minority groups, which are strong among Democrats. Just the way that Republicans pander to corporations. It's no different.

It creates an inequality in the law, which under the equal protection clause, 14th amendment, is unconstitutional.

Regardless of how you or I feel about a cross burning on someone's property, regardless of the victim, the action is still arson, and perhaps damage to property.

Just because a minority(hate group) wishes to hate another group, that doesn't give the State any right to come in and create an inequality in an attempt to engineer our society. It doesn't work. It never will.

Yeah like I told you, I'm not disagreeing that the nature of the crime should be punished any differently... but most definitely the existence of inequalities that create the hate as a motivating factor is enough indeed- at least in my opinion, and in the opinion of what I think is a majority of the constituencies around the country- minority groups being targeted and all other segments of the population... that once the inequalities cease to exist completely, then perhaps the stupidity that leads to the motives will also diminish to a point that can be considered nonexistent.

Then we can do away with these laws. As for constitutionality and the 14th Amendment... its open definitely to whatever interpretation you may want to give it. Much like Amendments are added to include all kinds of clauses permitting and outlawing all kinds of behavior.

Don't know how you come to that conclusion about pandering and more so legislative intent... but whatever. With this kind of thing its not really pandering to write laws that promote a civil, orderly society devoid of stupid divisiveness that most arguably has a root in very real history...

Lucky for all involved, although we do see waxing and waning of these kinds of hate-fueled crimes, I am of the thinking that they are slowly less and less (minus the increased reporting factor as time goes by) each year. Meaning one day, these laws will be obsolete.

I really despise the democracy process. The rights of the minority are strong-armed out by the wills of the majority. What a horrible non-sense procedure, especially when dealing with rights.

We all should be equal under the law, even if we are not seen as equal amongst our peers. This statement can be universally applied, to Affirmative Action, gay marriage, and any other law applied designed to limit the rights of others, or grant additional rights to groups in an attempt to equalize society. We are not an engineerable piece of machinery, we are a living society.

You cannot force people with prejudiced minds to change, they can and will only change on their own. Unjust favoritism laws only punish those with non-prejudiced minds. It's an act of futility that only divides us more as a society.

[Niels Bohr 72]

[mRx 16]

Hate crime legislation is targeted to combat the motive authorship of a hate crime.

Much like the death penalty is legislated to combat the motive authorship of murder.

You, as a white American, are not subject to having a cross burned in your front yard. Enough said.

That's what they want you to think. The legislation is created to favor minority groups, which are strong among Democrats. Just the way that Republicans pander to corporations. It's no different.

It creates an inequality in the law, which under the equal protection clause, 14th amendment, is unconstitutional.

Regardless of how you or I feel about a cross burning on someone's property, regardless of the victim, the action is still arson, and perhaps damage to property.

Just because a minority(hate group) wishes to hate another group, that doesn't give the State any right to come in and create an inequality in an attempt to engineer our society. It doesn't work. It never will.

It isn't arson though - for it to be arson you would need to set fire to the person's house, car or property. Putting a burning cross on a law - isn't arson unless it sets the house on fire.

Believe it or not - Its not only crimes against minorities that have laws that take into account the intent and context of a crime in addition to the crime itself - stalking laws being the most obvious example.

If some obsessed person hangs the family cat from your porch, do you think they should be charged simply with animal cruelty or for the fact that they are terrorising your family by making threats against them.

Well, stalking and terrorizing are crimes, completely independent of federally legislated hate crimes. I should've included that in what I said about burning crosses. But I am only trying to separate the crime from the specific group of the victim, because what group the victim belongs is irrelevant to the punishment of the crime. And frankly, I disagree with additional punishments based solely on minority, which is in essence, what a hate crime is. It is an inbalance of justice to those who do not fall under the same equal protection of hate crimes.

Well I'm not sure that there should necessarily be different classes of offence for hate crimes - as the judge has some leeway anyway as far as sentencing goes to take the crime into account.

But again - its not difficult to see that context is important when it comes to determining what is or isnt' a crime. If you killed someone - there's a whole slew of things you could be charged with, it wouldn't automatically be murder 1.

This was already discussed earlier though. The seriousness of offense, as in murder 1, 2, etc, is not based on the victim, it's based on the suspect. A hate crime is at it's core, a crime of thought. A state of bias against a certain favored group. It is an additional charge to the actual crime.

It is a blatant injustice to member's of the non favored groups, for if they are faced with the same assault from the same assailant, there pain is worth less justice in the court of law. This is precisily why I have issues with this.

But theoretically - hispanics or blacks gangs singling out and attacking whites on the basis of race would be subject to the same treatment.

But what if a white person hit another white person? It's still unjust. We are divided into groups not so much because it is human nature, but because our societal engineer's new laws, in trying to bring us together, has further separated us.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Hate crime legislation is targeted to combat the motive authorship of a hate crime.

Much like the death penalty is legislated to combat the motive authorship of murder.

You, as a white American, are not subject to having a cross burned in your front yard. Enough said.

That's what they want you to think. The legislation is created to favor minority groups, which are strong among Democrats. Just the way that Republicans pander to corporations. It's no different.

It creates an inequality in the law, which under the equal protection clause, 14th amendment, is unconstitutional.

Regardless of how you or I feel about a cross burning on someone's property, regardless of the victim, the action is still arson, and perhaps damage to property.

Just because a minority(hate group) wishes to hate another group, that doesn't give the State any right to come in and create an inequality in an attempt to engineer our society. It doesn't work. It never will.

It isn't arson though - for it to be arson you would need to set fire to the person's house, car or property. Putting a burning cross on a law - isn't arson unless it sets the house on fire.

Believe it or not - Its not only crimes against minorities that have laws that take into account the intent and context of a crime in addition to the crime itself - stalking laws being the most obvious example.

If some obsessed person hangs the family cat from your porch, do you think they should be charged simply with animal cruelty or for the fact that they are terrorising your family by making threats against them.

Well, stalking and terrorizing are crimes, completely independent of federally legislated hate crimes. I should've included that in what I said about burning crosses. But I am only trying to separate the crime from the specific group of the victim, because what group the victim belongs is irrelevant to the punishment of the crime. And frankly, I disagree with additional punishments based solely on minority, which is in essence, what a hate crime is. It is an inbalance of justice to those who do not fall under the same equal protection of hate crimes.

Well I'm not sure that there should necessarily be different classes of offence for hate crimes - as the judge has some leeway anyway as far as sentencing goes to take the crime into account.

But again - its not difficult to see that context is important when it comes to determining what is or isnt' a crime. If you killed someone - there's a whole slew of things you could be charged with, it wouldn't automatically be murder 1.

This was already discussed earlier though. The seriousness of offense, as in murder 1, 2, etc, is not based on the victim, it's based on the suspect. A hate crime is at it's core, a crime of thought. A state of bias against a certain favored group. It is an additional charge to the actual crime.

It is a blatant injustice to member's of the non favored groups, for if they are faced with the same assault from the same assailant, there pain is worth less justice in the court of law. This is precisily why I have issues with this.

But theoretically - hispanics or blacks gangs singling out and attacking whites on the basis of race would be subject to the same treatment.

But what if a white person hit another white person? It's still unjust. We are divided into groups not so much because it is human nature, but because our societal engineer's new laws, in trying to bring us together, has further separated us.

Sure it is - but I think its kinda difficult to be prejudiced against your own race

[Danno 1,228]

I don't think you could be more wrong there.

There are lots of people from every "group" who can't stand their own group.. err at least their views would be considered offensive if they did not have a free pass to speak them.

Again, there is too much mind-reading going on to judge who is doing the hating.

White guy in a bar bumps shoulders with a Black guy, if he then calls him a N_GGER before shooting him... is that a hate crime?

What if the same exact exchange took place between two Black guys?

[HAL 9000 96]

Hate crime legislation is targeted to combat the motive authorship of a hate crime.

Much like the death penalty is legislated to combat the motive authorship of murder.

You, as a white American, are not subject to having a cross burned in your front yard. Enough said.

That's what they want you to think. The legislation is created to favor minority groups, which are strong among Democrats. Just the way that Republicans pander to corporations. It's no different.

It creates an inequality in the law, which under the equal protection clause, 14th amendment, is unconstitutional.

Regardless of how you or I feel about a cross burning on someone's property, regardless of the victim, the action is still arson, and perhaps damage to property.

Just because a minority(hate group) wishes to hate another group, that doesn't give the State any right to come in and create an inequality in an attempt to engineer our society. It doesn't work. It never will.

It isn't arson though - for it to be arson you would need to set fire to the person's house, car or property. Putting a burning cross on a law - isn't arson unless it sets the house on fire.

Believe it or not - Its not only crimes against minorities that have laws that take into account the intent and context of a crime in addition to the crime itself - stalking laws being the most obvious example.

If some obsessed person hangs the family cat from your porch, do you think they should be charged simply with animal cruelty or for the fact that they are terrorising your family by making threats against them.

Well, stalking and terrorizing are crimes, completely independent of federally legislated hate crimes. I should've included that in what I said about burning crosses. But I am only trying to separate the crime from the specific group of the victim, because what group the victim belongs is irrelevant to the punishment of the crime. And frankly, I disagree with additional punishments based solely on minority, which is in essence, what a hate crime is. It is an inbalance of justice to those who do not fall under the same equal protection of hate crimes.

Plainly, I think you are merely imposing your idea of what the penalty phase is of a hate crime while frankly ignoring the motive part- which is where the root of the issue lies to be honest.

[HAL 9000 96]

Hate crime legislation is targeted to combat the motive authorship of a hate crime.

Much like the death penalty is legislated to combat the motive authorship of murder.

You, as a white American, are not subject to having a cross burned in your front yard. Enough said.

That's what they want you to think. The legislation is created to favor minority groups, which are strong among Democrats. Just the way that Republicans pander to corporations. It's no different.

It creates an inequality in the law, which under the equal protection clause, 14th amendment, is unconstitutional.

Regardless of how you or I feel about a cross burning on someone's property, regardless of the victim, the action is still arson, and perhaps damage to property.

Just because a minority(hate group) wishes to hate another group, that doesn't give the State any right to come in and create an inequality in an attempt to engineer our society. It doesn't work. It never will.

It isn't arson though - for it to be arson you would need to set fire to the person's house, car or property. Putting a burning cross on a law - isn't arson unless it sets the house on fire.

Believe it or not - Its not only crimes against minorities that have laws that take into account the intent and context of a crime in addition to the crime itself - stalking laws being the most obvious example.

If some obsessed person hangs the family cat from your porch, do you think they should be charged simply with animal cruelty or for the fact that they are terrorising your family by making threats against them.

Well, stalking and terrorizing are crimes, completely independent of federally legislated hate crimes. I should've included that in what I said about burning crosses. But I am only trying to separate the crime from the specific group of the victim, because what group the victim belongs is irrelevant to the punishment of the crime. And frankly, I disagree with additional punishments based solely on minority, which is in essence, what a hate crime is. It is an inbalance of justice to those who do not fall under the same equal protection of hate crimes.

Well I'm not sure that there should necessarily be different classes of offence for hate crimes - as the judge has some leeway anyway as far as sentencing goes to take the crime into account.

But again - its not difficult to see that context is important when it comes to determining what is or isnt' a crime. If you killed someone - there's a whole slew of things you could be charged with, it wouldn't automatically be murder 1.

This was already discussed earlier though. The seriousness of offense, as in murder 1, 2, etc, is not based on the victim, it's based on the suspect. A hate crime is at it's core, a crime of thought. A state of bias against a certain favored group. It is an additional charge to the actual crime.

It is a blatant injustice to member's of the non favored groups, for if they are faced with the same assault from the same assailant, there pain is worth less justice in the court of law. This is precisily why I have issues with this.

Kind of in reverse actually. For example, these same 'minorities' that supposedly are receiving a legal bias in terms of hate crimes classifications, end up receiving disproportionately longer prison sentences for equivalent crimes committed by members of non-minority groups. One could argue thusly that there is a discriminating bias against minorities upon sentencing much like you argue there is a legal bias against non-minorities in legislating.

Which in all fairness, balance, and pragmatism, is still quite far from a real level playing field in our society.