Woman charged in Fort Hood-related hate crime:

[justashooter 430]

1.) #######???? Shooter, hate crimes apply to all people. If you were wearing a big cross on your chest and someone firstly said Christians are murderers and then later pulled your cross that would be a hate crime. We are an enlightened society and that nonsense will not be tolerated.

2.) Your idea that a "black woman on welfare wearing a black scarf, on the other hand, is just an ignorant person looking for something to be part of so that she can have an identity, after failing to earn one of her own," is so insane, so racist, so ignorant that most people on VJ would rather look at you as some kind of nut than engage in trying to set the record straight.

3.) What if she was a Chinese Muslim (there are 20 million of them)?

4.) A crime is a crime, period.

5.)A hate crime is the same as the difference between murder 1 and murder 2.

6.) Equality means justice for all.

7.) Would we say the same thing if someone wore a cross or a Star of David?

8.) How do you earn an identity?

1.) read the relevant statutes before you speak. gays are protected, but straight people are not. muslims are protected, but christians are not. it's in the text of the relevant laws. if a gay guy harrasses me for being straight, or a muslim harasses me for being christian, it is not a hate crime as specified by the relevant atatutes.

2.) my comment has nothing to do with race. it merely remarks upon a class of people who love to scream "VICTIM!". it is prolly also an accurate assesment of the individual involved.

3.) you're telling me? i know bunches of them personally. they don't wear things to tell the world who they are. the world knows by watching their behaviour.

4.) in a perfect America, this would be true. unfortunately, thru perversion of statute to accomodate special interest groups, it is not.

5.) you are way off base on that analogy. read the statutory definitions again.

6.) i wish it did.

7.) as stated, christians are not covered within the language of hate crimes laws, though jews are.

8.) through individual accomplishment. did i really have to tell you that?

BTW sousuke, it's "brass tacks".

[AlHayatZween 2]

Sad screwed up thing is, if any of us went to a Muslim country in middle east and tried to practice our religion there, we would be thrown in jail immediately, or shot, or beaten or whipped or given lashes.

[Kathryn41 3,205]

Please watch it with the negative racial generalizations - they add nothing to the discussion and actually act to promote 'hate'.

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

Thanks for coming back. So lets get to the brass tax. Why can't it simply be a crime? Why must our society create a whole level higher?

It seems to me that its done to make an example of that person.

All sentences serve two purposes. Firstly, to deter that person and others from doing the act. All sentences are done to make an example of the convicted, some are just more publicized than others. Secondly, to allow for rehabilitation of the convicted to make them a productive member of society. I posted about the political angle of mentioning the maximum penalty in a press conference in an earlier post. That's part of the deterrance aspect. In practice, the penalty is similar in the case of simple assault and a hate crime like the one in question. Simple assault would probably generate a fine and community service or probation and this kind of hate crime would probably generate community service an dpossibly a fine. Incarceration is possible in both cases but not likely.

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

1.) #######???? Shooter, hate crimes apply to all people. If you were wearing a big cross on your chest and someone firstly said Christians are murderers and then later pulled your cross that would be a hate crime. We are an enlightened society and that nonsense will not be tolerated.

2.) Your idea that a "black woman on welfare wearing a black scarf, on the other hand, is just an ignorant person looking for something to be part of so that she can have an identity, after failing to earn one of her own," is so insane, so racist, so ignorant that most people on VJ would rather look at you as some kind of nut than engage in trying to set the record straight.

3.) What if she was a Chinese Muslim (there are 20 million of them)?

4.) A crime is a crime, period.

5.)A hate crime is the same as the difference between murder 1 and murder 2.

6.) Equality means justice for all.

7.) Would we say the same thing if someone wore a cross or a Star of David?

8.) How do you earn an identity?

1.) read the relevant statutes before you speak. gays are protected, but straight people are not. muslims are protected, but christians are not. it's in the text of the relevant laws. if a gay guy harrasses me for being straight, or a muslim harasses me for being christian, it is not a hate crime as specified by the relevant atatutes.

2.) my comment has nothing to do with race. it merely remarks upon a class of people who love to scream "VICTIM!". it is prolly also an accurate assesment of the individual involved.

3.) you're telling me? i know bunches of them personally. they don't wear things to tell the world who they are. the world knows by watching their behaviour.

4.) in a perfect America, this would be true. unfortunately, thru perversion of statute to accomodate special interest groups, it is not.

5.) you are way off base on that analogy. read the statutory definitions again.

6.) i wish it did.

7.) as stated, christians are not covered within the language of hate crimes laws, though jews are.

8.) through individual accomplishment. did i really have to tell you that?

BTW sousuke, it's "brass tacks".

1.) Bring it Friendo. Talk is cheap. If you have the statutes then post 'em, otherwise STFU.

2.) Black people like to scream "victim" you just repeated that. "It merely remarks upon a class of people who love to scream "VICTIM!". Who would that be?

3.) You know bunches of Chinese Muslims personally? Unless you have a statement of veracity from the Archangel Gabriel no one is buying it. What is it that they should wear to tell the world who they are? Perhaps they should carry a card the says "warning I am a Muslim." We can issue them numbered cards and have the number tattooed on their arms so we can keep track of them. "The world knows by watching their behavior," what behavior is that? They pray five times a day, that must mean that they're monsters who hate freedom.

4.) Special interest groups have perverted the statute? Explain how? Show me the statute. When stright white Christian males are targeted, I'll will be the first to prosecute the perp. Until then, any targeted group should be protected from the idiots of society.

5.) My analogy between premeditated crimes and unpremeditated crimes is valid unless you care to explain how it is faulty. Produce the statute and analysis or STFU.

6.) If you believe that the justice system is faulty and unequal then don't hate, try to do something constructive about it. Make sure your arguments are sound first.

7.) So we've established, by your own admission, that you have problems with what you see as special interest groups, Muslims and Jews. While I wait for you to produce the stautes that prove your point, can you tell me how many straight white Christian males have been attacked in the last year in the United States solely because they were straight white Christian males?

8.) "Identity is established through accomplishment," your own words. Being a religious person is a great accomplishment in today's society. It’s not easy. Your prototypical “black woman,” has an identity, she is a person of faith. It doesn’t matter if she’s Muslim, Hindu, Jew, Christian or any other faith. Perhaps only your version of Christianity counts, that makes her ignorant I suppose. What if she were a Catholic nun? I guess that’s not real Christianity in your book? There are far more white Christians on welfare than any other group.

Don’t pick on Sousake, he was defending you but your positions are indefenceable. Shooter, you know a great deal about guns, you’d best stick to talking about them in the future.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Haha yeah my wife just explained to me the original meaning of brass "tacks". I guess I've never seen it written anywhere in my life and made the wrong phonetic choice lol. To be fair I don't think I agree with justshooter very often so it may have just been reflexes on his part.

Here is my view of hate crimes (and I would say its not for the same reasons as JS.)

1. If the "standard" penalty is not strong enough for this situation then the "standard" should be raised.

2. I notice that in these cases the actual motive doesn't have to be proven conclusively only that the person hates the group in question. IE a person may say they hate an ethnic group. They may attack an individual of that group. However it can not always be proven that in that specific instance the person attacked the individual with the intent to threaten the community as a whole. (That is what I was getting at regarding thought crime earlier)

3. Some crimes that would not end up being hate crimes still fit the description of threatening a community. For instance if a serial murder kills multiple people in an area the whole community may feel threatened. Same thing with a serial robber etc.

4. It seems that for a hate crime to occur a community somewhere must feel threatened. How is this established? Do you take a poll of the surrounding community to determine if they were actually threatened?

I think that having a "hate crime" in the books is unnecessary in our society. Maybe in the past when the KKK were powerful and conclusively threatened the african-american population it was necessary. I don't think we can have true equality in this country until subjective laws such as these are abolished.

Edited November 23, 2009 by Sousuke

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

Haha yeah my wife just explained to me the original meaning of brass "tacks". I guess I've never seen it written anywhere in my life and made the wrong phonetic choice lol. To be fair I don't think I agree with justshooter very often so it may have just been reflexes on his part.

Here is my view of hate crimes (and I would say its not for the same reasons as JS.)

1. If the "standard" penalty is not strong enough for this situation then the "standard" should be raised.

2. I notice that in these cases the actual motive doesn't have to be proven conclusively only that the person hates the group in question. IE a person may say they hate an ethnic group. They may attack an individual of that group. However it can not always be proven that in that specific instance the person attacked the individual with the intent to threaten the community as a whole. (That is what I was getting at regarding thought crime earlier)

3. Some crimes that would not end up being hate crimes still fit the description of threatening a community. For instance if a serial murder kills multiple people in an area the whole community may feel threatened. Same thing with a serial robber etc.

4. It seems that for a hate crime to occur a community somewhere must feel threatened. How is this established? Do you take a poll of the surrounding community to determine if they were actually threatened?

I think that having a "hate crime" in the books is unnecessary in our society. Maybe in the past when the KKK were powerful and conclusively threatened the african-american population it was necessary. I don't think we can have true equality in this country until subjective laws such as these are abolished.

Thank God for that. Stricter enforcement would make sense but it's hard to get there without sentencing guidelines. There is obviously a motive of some sort, since we can't read peoples minds we can look at their actions and words and draw our own conclusions. We already do that in so many other types of cases, so that is hardly new. We have convictions without bodies, without the testimony of the accused, with the slimmest of evidence and nothing but supposition on the part of the prosecution. A serial killer kills by type, that's true to a certain extent but serial killers don't care about the victim. They aren't mad at the victim, they just kill without compunction or feeling. Actual threat or harm need not be proven if the nature of the crime is such that others feel threatened or it might lead to such feelings. This is a grey area but a man who kills his wife should be allowed to go free since he hated only her and he's not likely to reoffend. A person who commits a hate crime targets a specific type of person. In the case at bar the Muslim woman was minding her own business shopping when the alleged perpetrator started making threatening comments and then attacked her. Why did she attack her, because she was wearing the hijab and for no other reason. Based on the circumstances it would certainly make other Muslim women who wear hijabs a bit scared since this was in a supermarket and happened for no reason other than she was wearing a hijab which is associated with Islam.

[Nagishkaw 510]

What if someone tore a cone off of my jingle dress ?

[Saddle Bronc 124]

Not much surprise that the number of hate-crimes against Muslims in US is much closer to the number of post AI-182 Canada hate-crimes against Sikhs (recorded total in 24 years: zero) than to the "flood" of such projected by US media (even if total taken post 9-11).

[justashooter 430]

1.) Bring it Friendo. Talk is cheap. If you have the statutes then post 'em, otherwise STFU.

google it yourself

2.) Black people like to scream "victim" you just repeated that. "It merely remarks upon a class of people who love to scream "VICTIM!". Who would that be?

google it yourself

3.) You know bunches of Chinese Muslims personally? Unless you have a statement of veracity from the Archangel Gabriel no one is buying it.

dude, i lived in china for 4 years, in henan province, the center of islam in china. you want phone numbers? they all start with 011-86. but you prolly don't speak much chinese...

4.) Special interest groups have perverted the statute?

happens all the time. google it yourself.

5.) My analogy between premeditated crimes and unpremeditated crimes is valid unless you care to explain how it is faulty. Produce the statute and analysis or STFU.

a "hate" crime can be premeditated, or spontaneous, just like any other assault, except that it has a specially protected victim. this has nothing to do with the difference between planned and unplanned murder. it would be more like the difference between murder of a somalian and an eskimo. in my book there is no difference. idiot.

6.) If you believe that the justice system is faulty and unequal then don't hate, try to do something constructive about it. Make sure your arguments are sound first.

i vote every time, and am in contact with my local representative and senator on a regular basis.

7.) So we've established, by your own admission, that you have problems with what you see as special interest groups, Muslims and Jews. While I wait for you to produce the stautes that prove your point, can you tell me how many straight white Christian males have been attacked in the last year in the United States solely because they were straight white Christian males?

by my own admission i have problem with anybody being treated special under the law, except for servants of the law. i don't care if you're purple or green or a homosexual penguin. you are no more special than anybody else under common law. unfortunately, common law has been perverted to the point that blacks get academic admissions with lower scores, businesses owned by women win contracts at 20% over low bid, handicapped people have special parking space, the list goes on and on.

8.) "Identity is established through accomplishment," your own words. Being a religious person is a great accomplishment in today's society. It’s not easy. Your prototypical “black woman,” has an identity, she is a person of faith. It doesn’t matter if she’s Muslim, Hindu, Jew, Christian or any other faith. Perhaps only your version of Christianity counts, that makes her ignorant I suppose. What if she were a Catholic nun? I guess that’s not real Christianity in your book? There are far more white Christians on welfare than any other group.

you obviously do not understand, and never will.

Not much surprise that the number of hate-crimes against Muslims in US is much closer to the number of post AI-182 Canada hate-crimes against Sikhs (recorded total in 24 years: zero) than to the "flood" of such projected by US media (even if total taken post 9-11).

i would say that there is plenty of evidence of hate crimes by muslims in the USA.

[Nagishkaw 510]

What if someone plucked a feather or a fringe off of my regalia?

[nowhereman 1]

"There's no defending Kenney's alleged behavior, which sounds like disorderly conduct at least, but the charge and prospective penalty are grotesquely disproportionate unless there is more to the story," writes the Wall Street Journal's James Taranto.

I agree with Taranto's interpretation. Disorderly conduct with a sentence of community service.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Thank God for that. Stricter enforcement would make sense but it's hard to get there without sentencing guidelines. There is obviously a motive of some sort, since we can't read peoples minds we can look at their actions and words and draw our own conclusions. We already do that in so many other types of cases, so that is hardly new. We have convictions without bodies, without the testimony of the accused, with the slimmest of evidence and nothing but supposition on the part of the prosecution. A serial killer kills by type, that's true to a certain extent but serial killers don't care about the victim. They aren't mad at the victim, they just kill without compunction or feeling. Actual threat or harm need not be proven if the nature of the crime is such that others feel threatened or it might lead to such feelings. This is a grey area but a man who kills his wife should be allowed to go free since he hated only her and he's not likely to reoffend. A person who commits a hate crime targets a specific type of person. In the case at bar the Muslim woman was minding her own business shopping when the alleged perpetrator started making threatening comments and then attacked her. Why did she attack her, because she was wearing the hijab and for no other reason. Based on the circumstances it would certainly make other Muslim women who wear hijabs a bit scared since this was in a supermarket and happened for no reason other than she was wearing a hijab which is associated with Islam.

Our justice system is such that it must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't think that can be done unless a person makes a confession, a witness or two hears the defendant specifically say that they are attacking the person with the intent to intimidate a community as a whole ie. "I'm going to threaten this muslim in front of me so that muslims don't try and enter our store any longer". Or its premeditated and there is conclusive proof that they they did it to intimidate a group ie. they wrote in a diary etc.

In these types of cases though this doesn't even seem to be important. All the prosecution seems to need is proof that the person has a hatred for an ethnic group to win. From the article I believe the woman in question simply does not have the forethought or intelligence to base her actions on a further outcome. If I were selected for the jury of this case, I would need more then just proof that the defendant hates middle eastern peoples to find her guilty of a hate crime. It would need to be proven to me beyond a reasonable doubt that there was intent to harm the community as a whole.

Maybe there is still is a place for hate crimes, but the decision to label a crime as such needs to follow the same process as everything else in the judicial system.

Edited November 23, 2009 by Sousuke

[nowhereman 1]

I didn't read the entire thread before my last comment & it seems to me that several people are jumping to an incorrect conclusion: that because this incident has been labeled a hate crime & the proposed sentence seems excessive that hate crimes shouldn't have more severe penalties.

For example if 10 black kids beat the bejesus out a white kid simply because he is white that is a hate crime (or vice versa). The fact that a person is singled out due to their race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. does aggravate the crime because it is not only a crime against that person but a crime against whatever group is being targeted. The selective enforcement of hate crimes is certainly a topic of debate, but whether or not there should be a legal distinction between hate crimes & "normal" crimes is not the debate here (IMO).

[rebeccajo 14]

In the criminal justice system, why do you think we have the sentences 'manslaughter'. 'murder 1', 'murder 2'?

Because of intent.

I can't understand why anyone would be confused as to how intentional hatred of a category of persons should play no part in justice. It has clearly played a major role all along in sentencing.