Illegal Immigrants Now Considered A "Protected Class" Subject To "Hate Crime" Laws.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

It's not thought when someone beats up and kills someone based merely on the fact that they fit some profile of types of people one doesn't like rather than specific individuals because of actual harm. Hate crime legislation addresses very real problems. Would you prefer it is Jews for example had no recourse if someone swathed their synagogue with swazistickers? Is that the sort of apologist bullshit that appeases minorities and gains votes?

It's called vandalism/destruction of property. There's legal penalties and civil pentalties for such things. No 'hate crimes' legislation needed.

[Peikko 1,575]

It's called vandalism/destruction of property. There's legal penalties and civil pentalties for such things. No 'hate crimes' legislation needed.

You are wrong, again.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

You are wrong, again.

and you're ignorant as usual.

"i know you are, but what am i."

Yup, so glad you came back with a good argument! Bravo Cleo! Bravo!!!

[Peikko 1,575]

and you're ignorant as usual.

"i know you are, but what am i."

Yup, so glad you came back with a good argument! Bravo Cleo! Bravo!!!

You are wrong and ignorant.

Sept 2010

Link

..Members of one of the three congregations that use Temple Menorah, 7350 N. California Ave., arrived this morning to find two broken windows at the building smashed and the canvas panels of a sukkah -- a temporary hut used for prayers and celebration of Sukkot -- slashed with a sharp object, said Doug Zelden, rabbi of Or Menorah Congregation.

"It's definitely a hate crime," he said. "We are appalled and disgusted."...

Link

July, 2010

...Rabbi Sunshine believes the vandalism happened sometime overnight. Montgomery County police are investigating more than a dozen different slogans and symbols as a hate crime, including change found at the door, which Rabbi Sunshine believes insinuates Jews are money hungry...

Link

Feb, 2010

...BOCA RATON — Police on Tuesday were investigating the vandalism of a Boca Raton synagogue as a hate crime after burglars broke in, damaged property and left behind anti-Semitic and racist messages...

Just a quick sample.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

You are wrong and ignorant.

Sept 2010

Link

..Members of one of the three congregations that use Temple Menorah, 7350 N. California Ave., arrived this morning to find two broken windows at the building smashed and the canvas panels of a sukkah -- a temporary hut used for prayers and celebration of Sukkot -- slashed with a sharp object, said Doug Zelden, rabbi of Or Menorah Congregation.

"It's definitely a hate crime," he said. "We are appalled and disgusted."...

Link

July, 2010

...Rabbi Sunshine believes the vandalism happened sometime overnight. Montgomery County police are investigating more than a dozen different slogans and symbols as a hate crime, including change found at the door, which Rabbi Sunshine believes insinuates Jews are money hungry...

Link

Feb, 2010

...BOCA RATON — Police on Tuesday were investigating the vandalism of a Boca Raton synagogue as a hate crime after burglars broke in, damaged property and left behind anti-Semitic and racist messages...

Just a quick sample.

what are you pointing out? The hate crimes statutes are in effect there..... Many departments will investigate items as hate crimes now because they don't want the dirtbag Feds screaming down their throats.... After all, that's all 'hate crimes legislation' really does.... It basically says, "either you as a city or you as a state must try these items as a hate crime, or we will take the case later on and try it as a hate crime."

Of course all crimes are "hate crimes" by default... but let's ignore that fact.

Sally being killed by Tommy is worth less than Shaniqua being killed by Tommy.

[Peikko 1,575]

what are you pointing out? The hate crimes statutes are in effect there..... Many departments will investigate items as hate crimes now because they don't want the dirtbag Feds screaming down their throats.... After all, that's all 'hate crimes legislation' really does.... It basically says, "either you as a city or you as a state must try these items as a hate crime, or we will take the case later on and try it as a hate crime."

Of course all crimes are "hate crimes" by default... but let's ignore that fact.

Sally being killed by Tommy is worth less than Shaniqua being killed by Tommy.

All crimes are 'hate crimes' by default and that's a fact? With facts like that, who needs fiction?

Moving swiftly along, I am pointing out that hate crime legislation serves a purpose and is frequently cited and not because the police are scared of federal intervention (what a weird paranoia that suggestion is).

Now, as to the specific cases cited, is it your belief that simple criminal damage and vandalism laws are all that is required in these cases? You think in these instances calling it and prosecuting it as a hate crime is appeasing the Jews and pandering to them in order to get them to vote a particular way? What way would that be Paul? Are you suggesting that in these instances the Jews are just being whiny and pathetic and that having these laws on the statute books just makes things worse? Perhaps more vandalism against Jewish property occurs because of hate crime legislation? Is that it?

Even your rather simplistic version of justice discriminates between victims - not all people who are killed are 'unlawfully' killed and yet each victim is just as dead, how do you explain that? Premeditation? How about the wife who murders her abusive husband? The father of the rape victim who kills the rapist because he can't get justice any other way? Should these premeditated murders all be treated equally?

Finally, victims are not seen as worth more or less by any law, not least hate crime law, but the criminal is treated differently dependent on the determined motivation. That you can't see the difference is par for the course mind you.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

All crimes are 'hate crimes' by default and that's a fact? With facts like that, who needs fiction?

Moving swiftly along, I am pointing out that hate crime legislation serves a purpose and is frequently cited and not because the police are scared of federal intervention (what a weird paranoia that suggestion is).

Now, as to the specific cases cited, is it your belief that simple criminal damage and vandalism laws are all that is required in these cases? You think in these instances calling it and prosecuting it as a hate crime is appeasing the Jews and pandering to them in order to get them to vote a particular way? What way would that be Paul? Are you suggesting that in these instances the Jews are just being whiny and pathetic and that having these laws on the statute books just makes things worse? Perhaps more vandalism against Jewish property occurs because of hate crime legislation? Is that it?

Even your rather simplistic version of justice discriminates between victims - not all people who are killed are 'unlawfully' killed and yet each victim is just as dead, how do you explain that? Premeditation? How about the wife who murders her abusive husband? The father of the rape victim who kills the rapist because he can't get justice any other way? Should these premeditated murders all be treated equally?

Finally, victims are not seen as worth more or less by any law, not least hate crime law, but the criminal is treated differently dependent on the determined motivation. That you can't see the difference is par for the course mind you.

There's an argument that 'hate crime' laws can add to animosity. That's neither here nor there and not the pont of what we are talking about here.

We're talking about simply what's right and fair.

When you descripe the father of a rape victim or the abusive husband, etc. that kill or get killed, you're talking about vigilante justice partially. The other part of that determination is whether it was pre-meditated or not. Was it on a whim or rage, or was it actually planned out detail by detail. If it was planned out to kill a person for whatever reason, that is a capital crime in most states. There is never a 'legal' reason for such things and they will be treated as the scum that they killed in those cases where it was indeed premeditated..... Anything else would be self-defense, or temporary insanity, etc. if it was on a whim and in the moment... but the second you have a plan, the second you follow through with that plan, you are treated just like the criminal who committed the atrocious act against you.

[Peikko 1,575]

There's an argument that 'hate crime' laws can add to animosity. That's neither here nor there and not the pont of what we are talking about here.

We're talking about simply what's right and fair.

When you descripe the father of a rape victim or the abusive husband, etc. that kill or get killed, you're talking about vigilante justice partially. The other part of that determination is whether it was pre-meditated or not. Was it on a whim or rage, or was it actually planned out detail by detail. If it was planned out to kill a person for whatever reason, that is a capital crime in most states. There is never a 'legal' reason for such things and they will be treated as the scum that they killed in those cases where it was indeed premeditated..... Anything else would be self-defense, or temporary insanity, etc. if it was on a whim and in the moment... but the second you have a plan, the second you follow through with that plan, you are treated just like the criminal who committed the atrocious act against you.

Of course all factors need to be taken into account when making a determination on motive, that's my argument not yours. ( Determining whether a crime demands the death penalty is rather more nuanced than you have made it out to be btw).

That said, you didn't answer my question as to why one could and should dispense with hate crimes when dealing with the types of cases posted in this thread, specifically the cases of vandalism against Jewish synagogues with racist and nazi propoganda. Nor did you answer why the category of hate crime in the instance of actual bodily harm makes some victims 'worth' less than others.

It is quite clear that it is the motive of the criminal that determines the nature of the crime (you are arguing that very point in your post), not how dead the victims are. if one can determine that someone chooses to kill a stranger based on the fact that they superficially appear to belong to a target group that tells us something very different about the nature of the crime and the motivation of the killer than someone who chooses to skill someone they know because of something that actually happened between criminal and victim.

Edited October 15, 2010 by Madame Cleo

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Of course all factors need to be taken into account when making a determination on motive, that's my argument not yours. ( Determining whether a crime demands the death penalty is rather more nuanced than you have made it out to be btw).

That said, you didn't answer my question as to why one could and should dispense with hate crimes when dealing with the types of cases posted in this thread, specifically the cases of vandalism against Jewish synagogues with racist and nazi propoganda. Nor did you answer why the category of hate crime in the instance of actual bodily harm makes some victims 'worth' less than others.

It is quite clear that it is the motive of the criminal that determines the nature of the crime (you are arguing that very point in your post), not how dead the victims are. if one can determine that someone chooses to kill a stranger based on the fact that they superficially appear to belong to a target group that tells us something very different about the nature of the crime and the motivation of the killer than someone who chooses to skill someone they know because of something that actually happened between criminal and victim.

Well you have to ask yourself. How do you weigh the pain and fear of a victim of religious vandalism versus the pain and fear of someone who's home gets graffiti painted all over it by a bunch of gang bangers, who have an equal effect of pain and fear. Both crimes are the exact same. It's still vandalism and it still caused some sort of harm. Harm is subjective though as well. While some people will be scared/suffer, others will blow it off as a bunch of morons acting out... At the end of the day, it's the same crime, performed in the same way. What one may have felt in their heart when committing the crime is irrelevant to what they actually did in that case.

[Peikko 1,575]

Well you have to ask yourself. How do you weigh the pain and fear of a victim of religious vandalism versus the pain and fear of someone who's home gets graffiti painted all over it by a bunch of gang bangers, who have an equal effect of pain and fear. Both crimes are the exact same. It's still vandalism and it still caused some sort of harm. Harm is subjective though as well. While some people will be scared/suffer, others will blow it off as a bunch of morons acting out... At the end of the day, it's the same crime, performed in the same way. What one may have felt in their heart when committing the crime is irrelevant to what they actually did in that case.

The determination of whether or not to prosecute a crime as one of 'hate' is not based on what the criminal 'feels in their heart' when committing a crime. Where do you get this nonsense from anyway?

Not all acts of vandalism are equal Paul, but keep telling yourself they are. If an act of vandalism is designed to intimidate the person targeted as well as the 'group' that the person or people targeted represents then there is a legitimate argument to prosecute it as a hate crime, as would be the case with the vandalism of synagogues and as might be the case of vandalism by gang members. If the only crime committed is defacement of property that is a much lesser crime and should be prosecuted accordingly.

Edited October 15, 2010 by Madame Cleo

[Obama 2012 1,714]

The determination of whether or not to prosecute a crime as one of 'hate' is not based on what the criminal 'feels in their heart' when committing a crime. Where do you get this nonsense from anyway?

Not all acts of vandalism are equal Paul, but keep telling yourself they are. If an act of vandalism is designed to intimidate the person targeted as well as the 'group' that the person or people targeted represents then there is a legitimate argument to prosecute it as a hate crime, as would be the case with the vandalism of synagogues and as might be the case of vandalism by gang members. If the only crime committed is defacement of property that is a much lesser crime and should be prosecuted accordingly.

Actually yes what they feel in their heart does play into effect. If a white man kills a black man or vise versa, it's not a hate crime unless there was ill will shown in a person's history towards members of the opposite race. Kids can post swastikas all over a synagogue all day long because they think it's funny. That's not a hate crime though. Hate crimes are very much a punishment of thought and heart. It's motivation. It's taking "motive" and pushing it further down the rabbit hole to the darkest depts of the heart and soul for someone to judge. I can call someone a N-word up and down in a violent situation, but unless they can prove in my heart I hit a man because he was black, then the hate crimes statute does not apply. People say things out of anger and frustration that doesn't necessary mean that's how they "feel" about a group of people. Though there are some who have tried to apply it in that way....

We already have legal measures in most states that handles the case of 'intent' to do harm to people. Again, no "hate crimes" statute needed when there's ill intent. Which covers a broad base and not just "race or gender" crimes...

[Peikko 1,575]

Actually yes what they feel in their heart does play into effect. If a white man kills a black man or vise versa, it's not a hate crime unless there was ill will shown in a person's history towards members of the opposite race. Kids can post swastikas all over a synagogue all day long because they think it's funny. That's not a hate crime though. Hate crimes are very much a punishment of thought and heart. It's motivation. It's taking "motive" and pushing it further down the rabbit hole to the darkest depts of the heart and soul for someone to judge. I can call someone a N-word up and down in a violent situation, but unless they can prove in my heart I hit a man because he was black, then the hate crimes statute does not apply. People say things out of anger and frustration that doesn't necessary mean that's how they "feel" about a group of people. Though there are some who have tried to apply it in that way....

We already have legal measures in most states that handles the case of 'intent' to do harm to people. Again, no "hate crimes" statute needed when there's ill intent. Which covers a broad base and not just "race or gender" crimes...

Rather a rambling post, but at its heart you illustrate very well why 'hate crimes' are different to other crimes, why they should be treated as such and why it is very easy to determine whether someone is prejudiced and has a history of prejudiced behaviours (hence hate crime) or has a different vexation. No one needs to 'guess' as to whether a criminal is acting from prejudice at all, nor would anyone try to prosecute a hate crime on a whim - the criminal has to fit very exacting parameters and these parameters have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, just like every other aspect of the crime.

[mawilson 2,133]

I don't see a lot of illegal Europeans and Canadians being beaten up, so I'm guessing

his nationality had something to do with it.

[Peikko 1,575]

Just out of curiosity, what would you say to a youngster who thought it humerous to paint a synagogue with Swazi stickers?

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Rather a rambling post, but at its heart you illustrate very well why 'hate crimes' are different to other crimes, why they should be treated as such and why it is very easy to determine whether someone is prejudiced and has a history of prejudiced behaviours (hence hate crime) or has a different vexation. No one needs to 'guess' as to whether a criminal is acting from prejudice at all, nor would anyone try to prosecute a hate crime on a whim - the criminal has to fit very exacting parameters and these parameters have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, just like every other aspect of the crime.

Let's put it in this light. Do you think it's right for hate crimes to only be able to be used in cases of race/gender/religion? What if someone hates another person because they are wealthy or the other person is poor? What if the person for some reason in their heart loathes anyone who owns a dog or a cat and kill them? What if someone kill someone because they have a beard and they have always hated beards, can't stand them.... Wouldn't a 'hate' crime apply in those cases as well? What makes race/gender different/so special.

Just out of curiosity, what would you say to a youngster who thought it humerous to paint a synagogue with Swazi stickers?

Depends on the youngster... It's easy to be disconnected from a situation that you do not understand. The best thing to do there is try to educate them a little more on how harmful it can be to some to bring up such things.... At the end of the day, a prank is a prank and a joke is a joke....