T1B

88 wrote:The coup de grâce was a sucker punch delivered by the black gentleman to the rear of the heads of the gay fellows with a wooden chair.

That was a nice move, and just like in pro wrestling, it didn't seem to phase the recipient too terribly much.


Regarding your five questions, it's all very confusing.
Balck, gay, too-rigid chairs...
Hey, I'm inclined to blame it all on the white restaurant owner.
He posted no sign informing patrons not to bump others' tables -- causing drinks to possibly spill.
At least I'm aware of no such sign.

But I'll wait for Moving Bowel to come in and sort this all out.

His analysis will no doubt be spot-on, as usual.

There is no such thing as a hate crime. It's made up Bullshit.

Moving Sale wrote:There is no such thing as a hate crime. It's made up Bullshit.

How so MS? If someone is attacked only on the aspect of race, religion, gender or sexual preference, which would be viewed by most people as hate-based, how is a "hate crime" made up?

Only idiots give a fuck why you commit a violent crime.

Because the action itself is a hate crime, regardless of race creed or color.

Exactly my point R-Jack, which is why the MS post is so odd. Still waiting for his explanation.

Then you're both wrong. "Hate" is a thought or a motivation. It is not an action of any kind.

Jay in Phoenix wrote:Exactly my point R-Jack, which is why the MS post is so odd. Still waiting for his explanation.

The motivation for any crime of that nature is rooted in hate. The separate distinction is redundant and useless.

The chair at the end is simply inexcusable. Doesn't matter if it's a black dude against a cocksucker; he should go to prison for that action alone.

mvscal wrote:Then you're both wrong. "Hate" is a thought or a motivation. It is not an action of any kind.

A hate crime is defined as usually violent, motivated by prejudice or intolerance toward an individual’s national origin, ethnicity, color, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability.

So yes, hate is a motivation but the crime doesn't exist without the motivation, thus making it a crime of hate. Or passion or any other adjective you wish to apply. So while hate itself is not a crime, it doesn't negate a crime being labeled as "hate", regardless of semantics.

It ain't my definition, I'm just restating it.

"Hate" if it can be demonstrated is an enhancement to the sentence for the actual crime of assault or murder etc.

I heard that it all started when the faggot rolled his eyes when the nog dipped his brisket in sauce.

smackaholic wrote:I heard that it all started when the faggot rolled his eyes when the nog dipped his brisket in sauce.

That's a rack, smack!

I have nothing, at this point, to add to what mvs said.

Moving Sale wrote:I have nothing, at this point, to add to what mvs said.

Yet the law still exists, whether you acknowledge it or not.

In the 1,000's of cases I have handled I have never run across it, but I hear it's on the books. I meant my first post sarcastically.

Moving Sale wrote:In the 1,000's of cases I have handled I have never run across it, but I hear it's on the books. I meant my first post sarcastically.

:)

Here is the problem with attaching labels to crimes. They don't make the crime any less or more of a crime. The labels just satisfied a special interest group and make a few people feel better about what happened in their life.

In fact labels often lead to sympathy for the criminal. Take for example rape. Rape should be rape regardless of who is involved. Ugly women pushed for expanded rape titles like date rape and acquaintance rape. But if some frat boy rapes a girl and she is screaming no get off me is that any different than the same girl being raped as she is out for a jog? The clear answer is no. But putting a label on it makes one worse than the other when that shouldn't be the case.

Same for hate. Replace the black guy above with a gay guy. Now it is gay on gay assault. Is the assault any less violent because it was a different sexual choice? No it wasn't. So what does the label of hate bring? Nothing but additional hard feelings and anger.

^^^Worst route to the right answer in the history of thinking.

Moving Sale wrote:^^^Worst route to the right answer in the history of thinking.

Who cares how one gets to Tam, as long as you got there?

What didn't you like about my route?

mvscal wrote:Only idiots give a fuck why you commit a violent crime.

I wouldn't go that far, but I get your point.

Motive is not an element of a crime; the law is not concerned with motive. It is very concerned, however, with mens rea, meaning mental intention, mental fault, or guilty mind. The term stems from an obscure Latin maxim that translates to "the act is not guilty unless the mind is guilty." Why a crime is committed is irrelevant to the law; all that matters is that the perp knew what he did was wrong at the time the act was committed. This makes the existence of hate crimes seem illogical, since hate would be a motive, as would greed, revenge, or the desire to keep information from becoming known to others (cover-up).

While motive is not a criminal element, people who aren't idiots would give a fuck about it because it could be persuasive in assigning guilt, especially in cases that rely heavily on circumstantial evidence. If a prosecutor is trying to convince a judge or jury of a defendant's guilt without having physical evidence, determining that the defendant had sufficient motive (any motive, including hate) to carry out the act could potentially tip the scale in favor of conviction. Conversely, if there is little or no physical evidence and no motive can be determined, acquittal becomes more likely.