Okay, I'll read some more.

I'm reading Mad Magazine, but there's nothing in here about "what-the-hell-Brianna-meant-when-she-made-a-vague-statement-and-refused-to-clarify-it" ... maybe that's in the next issue? How about if I Google "direct-questions-that-people-couldn't-or-wouldn't-answer" ...

*sigh*

Who cares? Billybob kills Abdul. Joe kills Omar. Jose kills Fredrick. Rastus kills Luigi. What's the difference? Not a damn thing, in all cases one human killed another human, and should be punished.

Our legal system has a built in way of dealing with mitigating circumstances. Not everyone that takes another life should receive the same punishment. Remember the kid getting ten years for receiving blow job? So, they add hate crime to the books as a more serious, more heinous act, alerting the judge and jury that this one gets no sympathy or lenience.

The fly in the ointment, at least until the flies get organized and that expression goes the way of the nigger in the woodpile, is the DA gets to decide if it's a hate crime or not. Now you've taken away the judge and jury, the core of our legal system, and put a (wo)man's fate at the whim of the DA.
The DA not only doesn't have to prove it, he doesn't even have to say why, even if he's badgered by curious reporters.

So there are pros and cons to the existence of hate crime as attachment to another crime, but to me, anything that bypasses the legal system and makes one man(DA) the sole arbiter of your intentions, sucks.

Sucks = Illegal, Immoral and Unconstitutional.:mad:

You are kidding right? You really cannot think for yourself enough to understand that I was talking about human on human crime since it is the paradigm of the type of crime defined by hate crimes?
Then, I'm sorry I did not spell that out for you.

Worse than the term "hate crime" being used/ overused, is the fact that people still commit crimes against others just because of race/ethnicity.

Maybe she didn't realize that's what you meant rkz. Not everyone has a great understanding of laws and the definitions of them and nor should they need to. That's what we have lawyers for. The ones who spend years learning about laws.

Spex, I agree with what you say, but when it all comes down to it, human beings are tribal creatures. It's just one tribe against another.

I suppose that since families are breaking down and more people are choosing to disassociate themselves from society to greater or lesser extents, perhaps this 'tribal nature' might slowly die out.

I've read enough of her posts to get an idea of when she is baiting.
Perhaps I was wrong, but I doubt it.
If I am I'll apologize.

Isn't Billybob killing Abdul a human on human crime, and likely to be called a hate crime if the DA feels Billybob did it because of racial hatred rather than for spitting tobacco? Now you've got me confused. :confused:

hmm. Not all crime is a hate crime, as has been pointed out. Crimes committed for personal gain, for example, are a big category of non-hate crimes. Motive and mental intention have always been factors in determining the nature, severity, and punishment in criminal law.

a murder without name calling can be less of a crime, yes. Knocking off someone by accident in a convenience-store robbery can be less of a crime than a systematic campaign of bias-motivated violence, for example. Remember that crimes are wrongs against society, not individuals.

Yeah, I agree that the term is over used. Personally, I'd rather see the attitude and acts that lead to the term being used, eliminated, rather than grousing about semantics.

What if BillyBob loves Abdul? Does that make it a love crime?
And what if BillyBob is a mormon and Abdul is gay? Since mormons love the sinner but hate the sin, is this a love/hate crime?
And then, what if BillyBob kills the lead singer from the group Hole?
Would that make this a love/hate/love crime?

gettin' dizzy here.:joint:

Wasn't obvious to me either and I believe I am able to think for myself.

Where does one draw the line between "human on human" crime and other crime? Theft and burglary are not necessarily violent crimes, but they are crimes against people and there are gangs/individuals who will pick the store they shoplift or house they burgle by the race of the owners, so that would surely make those thefts "hate crime"? Don't people instinctively feel those people need to be punished more harshly than the hungry guy who steals food from the store because he needs to eat? Of course the crimes are the same, but the motives are different. Is motive really so irrelevant? Wouldn't the shopkeeper feel more violated in one case than in the other?

Just thinking aloud, really.....

If a bullet violates my body, it violates my body... the reason was the person chose to pull the trigger, end of story.

well . . . the fact that a bullet "violates" your body isn't enough to make a crime, according to the law. The common law of US/UK culture always takes motivation into account and has for centuries.

So, if I set a machine up to randomly shoot because I like the sound and it happens to kill someone, no crime. Cool.