New Hate Crimes Legislation

[JettaKD]

DioxazinePlum

People seem to be misinterpreting the word "hate" in "hate crimes".

If you are a repressed gay, and you kill a gay guy, its still a hate crime even though the perpetrator was gay.

A crime is a hate crime when the perpetrator did the crime as a symbolic act against a group, or someone kills someone because of a specific trait they have, such as being gay, black, white, asian, blind, jew, bald, whatever. Its a hate crime if its directed towards a group of people even though it was done to an individual.

Again, its easy to say, oh that guy got killed because he was black, which makes the laws so tricky. Should hate crime victims be protected? Of course. There needs to be strong evidence that it actually was a hate crime however, because of how easy it is to make the claim.

I agree very much about the evidence of a hate crime having to be proven as a hate crime through past evidence. For example, in the case of the Matthew Shepherd murder, we know it was a hate crime due to the killers saying they were going to go rob and kill a gay man (they didn't say gay man obviously, but you get the idea). If it can't be proven that they person has some sort of obvious hatred for that group and that the crime was perpetrated as a hate crime, then it shouldn't be tried as such.  

[JettaKD]

Fresnel

DioxazinePlum

black_wing_angel

DioxazinePlum

People seem to be misinterpreting the word "hate" in "hate crimes".

If you are a repressed gay, and you kill a gay guy, its still a hate crime even though the perpetrator was gay.

A crime is a hate crime when the perpetrator did the crime as a symbolic act against a group, or someone kills someone because of a specific trait they have, such as being gay, black, white, asian, blind, jew, bald, whatever. Its a hate crime if its directed towards a group of people even though it was done to an individual.

Again, its easy to say, oh that guy got killed because he was black, which makes the laws so tricky. Should hate crime victims be protected? Of course. There needs to be strong evidence that it actually was a hate crime however, because of how easy it is to make the claim.

Yeah, see, if I killed someone who happened to be black, as an isolated event (let's say he tried to rob me at knife-point, while I had a gun on my person), then there should be NO chance of it being ruled a hate crime.

Even if I WASN'T justified. Let's say I was just mad at this guy, and blew his head off. Still, no reason to assume it's a hate crime.

However, if I seem to exhibit a pattern of killing black people, or people often hear me say something like "those worthless ******** niggers!" THEN we have grounds to assume a hate crime. But certainly not prior to that knowledge.

Thats what I'm saying, I'm sure that the prosecutors do their jobs, and research whether or not the guy has a history of racist/anti-gay/anti-whatever history.

If I didn't hear a history of the behavior, I'm not going to convict the guy.

Haha, prosecutors being fair.

They're going to go back into your childhood and find the little black kid you pushed in the sandbox when you were four, and they'll find someone who's heard you talk s**t about Obama's policies, and they'll find some black hobo they can bribe with a ham sandwich to say you kicked him once and called him a ******, and they're going to make it sound like you do this s**t every day and you're a ******** menace to society. Prosecutors are some of the biggest assholes on the planet, because it's their job to convict you through any means necessary.

Actually, unless the suspect nearly beat the living hell or killed another child while making obvious racial epithets about him/her, then its illegal to admit anything that the suspect did during childhood as a part of the evidence. Its pretty much inadmissable in court, and you'd have to go through a hell of a lot of legal red tape to even get a murder through into evidence if the suspect wasn't charged as an adult.

Then again, I studied about three semesters to be an a*****e, so I may be biased what with my learnings wink  

[Fresnel]

JettaKD

Fresnel

DioxazinePlum

black_wing_angel

DioxazinePlum

People seem to be misinterpreting the word "hate" in "hate crimes".

If you are a repressed gay, and you kill a gay guy, its still a hate crime even though the perpetrator was gay.

A crime is a hate crime when the perpetrator did the crime as a symbolic act against a group, or someone kills someone because of a specific trait they have, such as being gay, black, white, asian, blind, jew, bald, whatever. Its a hate crime if its directed towards a group of people even though it was done to an individual.

Again, its easy to say, oh that guy got killed because he was black, which makes the laws so tricky. Should hate crime victims be protected? Of course. There needs to be strong evidence that it actually was a hate crime however, because of how easy it is to make the claim.

Yeah, see, if I killed someone who happened to be black, as an isolated event (let's say he tried to rob me at knife-point, while I had a gun on my person), then there should be NO chance of it being ruled a hate crime.

Even if I WASN'T justified. Let's say I was just mad at this guy, and blew his head off. Still, no reason to assume it's a hate crime.

However, if I seem to exhibit a pattern of killing black people, or people often hear me say something like "those worthless ******** niggers!" THEN we have grounds to assume a hate crime. But certainly not prior to that knowledge.

Thats what I'm saying, I'm sure that the prosecutors do their jobs, and research whether or not the guy has a history of racist/anti-gay/anti-whatever history.

If I didn't hear a history of the behavior, I'm not going to convict the guy.

Haha, prosecutors being fair.

They're going to go back into your childhood and find the little black kid you pushed in the sandbox when you were four, and they'll find someone who's heard you talk s**t about Obama's policies, and they'll find some black hobo they can bribe with a ham sandwich to say you kicked him once and called him a ******, and they're going to make it sound like you do this s**t every day and you're a ******** menace to society. Prosecutors are some of the biggest assholes on the planet, because it's their job to convict you through any means necessary.

Actually, unless the suspect nearly beat the living hell or killed another child while making obvious racial epithets about him/her, then its illegal to admit anything that the suspect did during childhood as a part of the evidence. Its pretty much inadmissable in court, and you'd have to go through a hell of a lot of legal red tape to even get a murder through into evidence if the suspect wasn't charged as an adult.

Then again, I studied about three semesters to be an a*****e, so I may be biased what with my learnings wink

You can tell the jurors to forget what they heard, but you know they can't do that. It'll always be there, in the backs of their minds, niggling at them. And even if they can't reach back that far, they'll find other things they can touch. They'll find everything they can which could POSSIBLY be used, directly relevant or not, and they'll make a man look like Satan incarnate.  

[DioxazinePlum]

Fresnel

DioxazinePlum

black_wing_angel

DioxazinePlum

People seem to be misinterpreting the word "hate" in "hate crimes".

If you are a repressed gay, and you kill a gay guy, its still a hate crime even though the perpetrator was gay.

A crime is a hate crime when the perpetrator did the crime as a symbolic act against a group, or someone kills someone because of a specific trait they have, such as being gay, black, white, asian, blind, jew, bald, whatever. Its a hate crime if its directed towards a group of people even though it was done to an individual.

Again, its easy to say, oh that guy got killed because he was black, which makes the laws so tricky. Should hate crime victims be protected? Of course. There needs to be strong evidence that it actually was a hate crime however, because of how easy it is to make the claim.

Yeah, see, if I killed someone who happened to be black, as an isolated event (let's say he tried to rob me at knife-point, while I had a gun on my person), then there should be NO chance of it being ruled a hate crime.

Even if I WASN'T justified. Let's say I was just mad at this guy, and blew his head off. Still, no reason to assume it's a hate crime.

However, if I seem to exhibit a pattern of killing black people, or people often hear me say something like "those worthless ******** niggers!" THEN we have grounds to assume a hate crime. But certainly not prior to that knowledge.

Thats what I'm saying, I'm sure that the prosecutors do their jobs, and research whether or not the guy has a history of racist/anti-gay/anti-whatever history.

If I didn't hear a history of the behavior, I'm not going to convict the guy.

Haha, prosecutors being fair.

They're going to go back into your childhood and find the little black kid you pushed in the sandbox when you were four, and they'll find someone who's heard you talk s**t about Obama's policies, and they'll find some black hobo they can bribe with a ham sandwich to say you kicked him once and called him a ******, and they're going to make it sound like you do this s**t every day and you're a ******** menace to society. Prosecutors are some of the biggest assholes on the planet, because it's their job to convict you through any means necessary.

Haha, bitter much?  

[Fresnel]

DioxazinePlum

Fresnel

DioxazinePlum

black_wing_angel

DioxazinePlum

People seem to be misinterpreting the word "hate" in "hate crimes".

If you are a repressed gay, and you kill a gay guy, its still a hate crime even though the perpetrator was gay.

A crime is a hate crime when the perpetrator did the crime as a symbolic act against a group, or someone kills someone because of a specific trait they have, such as being gay, black, white, asian, blind, jew, bald, whatever. Its a hate crime if its directed towards a group of people even though it was done to an individual.

Again, its easy to say, oh that guy got killed because he was black, which makes the laws so tricky. Should hate crime victims be protected? Of course. There needs to be strong evidence that it actually was a hate crime however, because of how easy it is to make the claim.

Yeah, see, if I killed someone who happened to be black, as an isolated event (let's say he tried to rob me at knife-point, while I had a gun on my person), then there should be NO chance of it being ruled a hate crime.

Even if I WASN'T justified. Let's say I was just mad at this guy, and blew his head off. Still, no reason to assume it's a hate crime.

However, if I seem to exhibit a pattern of killing black people, or people often hear me say something like "those worthless ******** niggers!" THEN we have grounds to assume a hate crime. But certainly not prior to that knowledge.

Thats what I'm saying, I'm sure that the prosecutors do their jobs, and research whether or not the guy has a history of racist/anti-gay/anti-whatever history.

If I didn't hear a history of the behavior, I'm not going to convict the guy.

Haha, prosecutors being fair.

They're going to go back into your childhood and find the little black kid you pushed in the sandbox when you were four, and they'll find someone who's heard you talk s**t about Obama's policies, and they'll find some black hobo they can bribe with a ham sandwich to say you kicked him once and called him a ******, and they're going to make it sound like you do this s**t every day and you're a ******** menace to society. Prosecutors are some of the biggest assholes on the planet, because it's their job to convict you through any means necessary.

Haha, bitter much?

Yes. It's the same reason I ******** hate reporters and the media.  

[black_wing_angel]

DioxazinePlum

Fresnel

DioxazinePlum

black_wing_angel

DioxazinePlum

People seem to be misinterpreting the word "hate" in "hate crimes".

If you are a repressed gay, and you kill a gay guy, its still a hate crime even though the perpetrator was gay.

A crime is a hate crime when the perpetrator did the crime as a symbolic act against a group, or someone kills someone because of a specific trait they have, such as being gay, black, white, asian, blind, jew, bald, whatever. Its a hate crime if its directed towards a group of people even though it was done to an individual.

Again, its easy to say, oh that guy got killed because he was black, which makes the laws so tricky. Should hate crime victims be protected? Of course. There needs to be strong evidence that it actually was a hate crime however, because of how easy it is to make the claim.

Yeah, see, if I killed someone who happened to be black, as an isolated event (let's say he tried to rob me at knife-point, while I had a gun on my person), then there should be NO chance of it being ruled a hate crime.

Even if I WASN'T justified. Let's say I was just mad at this guy, and blew his head off. Still, no reason to assume it's a hate crime.

However, if I seem to exhibit a pattern of killing black people, or people often hear me say something like "those worthless ******** niggers!" THEN we have grounds to assume a hate crime. But certainly not prior to that knowledge.

Thats what I'm saying, I'm sure that the prosecutors do their jobs, and research whether or not the guy has a history of racist/anti-gay/anti-whatever history.

If I didn't hear a history of the behavior, I'm not going to convict the guy.

Haha, prosecutors being fair.

They're going to go back into your childhood and find the little black kid you pushed in the sandbox when you were four, and they'll find someone who's heard you talk s**t about Obama's policies, and they'll find some black hobo they can bribe with a ham sandwich to say you kicked him once and called him a ******, and they're going to make it sound like you do this s**t every day and you're a ******** menace to society. Prosecutors are some of the biggest assholes on the planet, because it's their job to convict you through any means necessary.

Haha, bitter much?

It's not as much a stretch as you think.

In many (if not all) law firms, the lawyer is NOT paid to "represent their client", they are paid to WIN. Meaning, if they do not win, they do not get paid. With that in mind, they will go to ANY length to win. Even if it means breaking moral and ethical boundaries. If they think they can pull it off, you can bet your a**, they'll try!

I often tell people that, given my astute sense of logic, which would have made even Johnny Cochran proud, I could've been a lawyer, and a DAMN good one, but I have a trait that makes it impossible. Morals.  

[JettaKD]

black_wing_angel

DioxazinePlum

Fresnel

DioxazinePlum

black_wing_angel

DioxazinePlum

People seem to be misinterpreting the word "hate" in "hate crimes".

If you are a repressed gay, and you kill a gay guy, its still a hate crime even though the perpetrator was gay.

A crime is a hate crime when the perpetrator did the crime as a symbolic act against a group, or someone kills someone because of a specific trait they have, such as being gay, black, white, asian, blind, jew, bald, whatever. Its a hate crime if its directed towards a group of people even though it was done to an individual.

Again, its easy to say, oh that guy got killed because he was black, which makes the laws so tricky. Should hate crime victims be protected? Of course. There needs to be strong evidence that it actually was a hate crime however, because of how easy it is to make the claim.

Yeah, see, if I killed someone who happened to be black, as an isolated event (let's say he tried to rob me at knife-point, while I had a gun on my person), then there should be NO chance of it being ruled a hate crime.

Even if I WASN'T justified. Let's say I was just mad at this guy, and blew his head off. Still, no reason to assume it's a hate crime.

However, if I seem to exhibit a pattern of killing black people, or people often hear me say something like "those worthless ******** niggers!" THEN we have grounds to assume a hate crime. But certainly not prior to that knowledge.

Thats what I'm saying, I'm sure that the prosecutors do their jobs, and research whether or not the guy has a history of racist/anti-gay/anti-whatever history.

If I didn't hear a history of the behavior, I'm not going to convict the guy.

Haha, prosecutors being fair.

They're going to go back into your childhood and find the little black kid you pushed in the sandbox when you were four, and they'll find someone who's heard you talk s**t about Obama's policies, and they'll find some black hobo they can bribe with a ham sandwich to say you kicked him once and called him a ******, and they're going to make it sound like you do this s**t every day and you're a ******** menace to society. Prosecutors are some of the biggest assholes on the planet, because it's their job to convict you through any means necessary.

Haha, bitter much?

It's not as much a stretch as you think.

In many (if not all) law firms, the lawyer is NOT paid to "represent their client", they are paid to WIN. Meaning, if they do not win, they do not get paid. With that in mind, they will go to ANY length to win. Even if it means breaking moral and ethical boundaries. If they think they can pull it off, you can bet your a**, they'll try!

I often tell people that, given my astute sense of logic, which would have made even Johnny Cochran proud, I could've been a lawyer, and a DAMN good one, but I have a trait that makes it impossible. Morals.

I studied pre-law for about three semesters, till I had my first mock trial and we discovered that I get panic attacks :/ Not a fun way to find out.

And with independent, ie civil cases, there are times when the lawyer isn't paid if he loses. However, I'm 98% sure that's not the case if a lawyer is a state prosecutor. The state can't really *not* pay its employees without some sort of shitstorm occurring.  

[black_wing_angel]

JettaKD

black_wing_angel

DioxazinePlum

Fresnel

DioxazinePlum

Thats what I'm saying, I'm sure that the prosecutors do their jobs, and research whether or not the guy has a history of racist/anti-gay/anti-whatever history.

If I didn't hear a history of the behavior, I'm not going to convict the guy.

Haha, prosecutors being fair.

They're going to go back into your childhood and find the little black kid you pushed in the sandbox when you were four, and they'll find someone who's heard you talk s**t about Obama's policies, and they'll find some black hobo they can bribe with a ham sandwich to say you kicked him once and called him a ******, and they're going to make it sound like you do this s**t every day and you're a ******** menace to society. Prosecutors are some of the biggest assholes on the planet, because it's their job to convict you through any means necessary.

Haha, bitter much?

It's not as much a stretch as you think.

In many (if not all) law firms, the lawyer is NOT paid to "represent their client", they are paid to WIN. Meaning, if they do not win, they do not get paid. With that in mind, they will go to ANY length to win. Even if it means breaking moral and ethical boundaries. If they think they can pull it off, you can bet your a**, they'll try!

I often tell people that, given my astute sense of logic, which would have made even Johnny Cochran proud, I could've been a lawyer, and a DAMN good one, but I have a trait that makes it impossible. Morals.

I studied pre-law for about three semesters, till I had my first mock trial and we discovered that I get panic attacks :/ Not a fun way to find out.

And with independent, ie civil cases, there are times when the lawyer isn't paid if he loses. However, I'm 98% sure that's not the case if a lawyer is a state prosecutor. The state can't really *not* pay its employees without some sort of shitstorm occurring.

Yes, but I'm sure there's a lot of work in becoming a state prosecutor, too.

In the end, with most "good" lawyers, its not about "finding the truth" as much as it's about "winning". Which, I understand wanting to present the strongest case possible, but distorting events, and bending the truth, aren't things I can tolerate the idea of myself doing.