3
   

Holy Hell, The State Now feels Free to Add Hate Penalties for IntraGroup Crimes

Forums: Legal, News, Hate Crimes
Email this Topic • Print this Page
 
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Nov, 2011 03:51 pm
@contrex,
hawkeye10 wrote:
dont throw in a kicker penalty because you decide that the transgression was motivated by an natural human emotion that you dont like.
contrex wrote:
So racism, xenophobia and bigotry are "natural human emotions"?
U think thay r unnatural & weird?





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Nov, 2011 04:01 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
Gratuitous yes, illegal no....
farmerman wrote:
Free Expression of ones religion IS a civil right.
The AMish Beard is considered a measure of thatFree Expression.
To remove it is a violation of the AMish civil rights (therefore) a hate crime.
What part of the 1st Amendment dont you understand
Arguably, the abuses of Torquemada were LOVINGLY executed,
with the goal of rescuing the victims from a worse fate in hell.





David
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Nov, 2011 04:03 pm
@farmerman,
I don't belive that there should be any hate crimes....drawing a swastka on a black church should carry the same penalty as drawing it anywhere else or a peace sign.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Nov, 2011 04:05 pm
@hawkeye10,

parados wrote:
And you forgot to post the part where "motive" plays a part in prosecution of crimes and sentencing when convicted.
hawkeye10 wrote:
I feel like I am talking to a fourth grader......
It is morally rong
to insult 9 year old people.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Nov, 2011 04:07 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
I don't belive that there should be any hate crimes....drawing a swastka on a black church should carry the same penalty as drawing it anywhere else or a peace sign.
Well said; it is criminal trespass & it is vandalism.
Emotions have no proper place in the law.





David
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Nov, 2011 04:58 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

parados wrote:

And you forgot to post the part where "motive" plays a part in prosecution of crimes and sentencing when convicted.

I feel like I am talking to a fourth grader......my argument is that the law as it is currently practiced is wrong, is illegal. Establishing motive should only count in deciding if a crime was likely committed, the wrong motives shoul not be either a crime nor should the wrong motive bring attitional penalties.


So.. if the motive is to defend someone, that shouldn't be taken into account?
Of course motives are considered in determining how to charge a crime. To claim they aren't considered shows a complete lack of understanding of the history.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Nov, 2011 05:03 pm
@parados,
hawkeye10 wrote:

parados wrote:

And you forgot to post the part where "motive" plays a part in prosecution of crimes and sentencing when convicted.

I feel like I am talking to a fourth grader......my argument is that the law as it is currently practiced is wrong, is illegal. Establishing motive should only count in deciding if a crime was likely committed, the wrong motives shoul not be either a crime nor should the wrong motive bring attitional penalties.
parados wrote:
So.. if the motive is to defend someone, that shouldn't be taken into account?
Of course motives are considered in determining how to charge a crime. To claim they aren't considered shows a complete lack of understanding of the history.
"The history" does NOT include jurisdiction over emotions, unless u mean "the history" of Red China.
Such jurisdiction is fake, liberal, twisted, fraudulent & usurped.





David
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Nov, 2011 05:18 pm
@hawkeye10,
Your so-called "truth" is subjectively your conclusion, and nobody elses'.
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Fri 25 Nov, 2011 05:20 pm
@parados,
I'm not sure how hawk can conclude motivation and intent are "entirely different things." He must be able to read the minds of criminals. LOL
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Fri 25 Nov, 2011 05:24 pm
@hawkeye10,
You can't draw, paint or show a swastika in Germany; it's a crime punishable by 8 years in prison.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Nov, 2011 05:30 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
"The history" does NOT include jurisdiction over emotions

How do you tell the difference between murder and manslaughter?
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Nov, 2011 05:32 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

You can't draw, paint or show a swastika in Germany; it's a crime punishable by 8 years in prison.
The Germans are also talking about making those who claim to be of certain right wing political parties register with the state as if they are sex offenders....Germany is not perfect. I am more interested in America's abuse of individual rights in this thread however.,
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Nov, 2011 05:34 pm
@hawkeye10,
What I was trying to explain was "hate crime" that can be "interpreted" as one by most people. You seem immune to the idea.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Nov, 2011 05:35 pm
@parados,
Quote:
So.. if the motive is to defend someone, that shouldn't be taken into account?
Sure defense is not like offense/transgression, and it should matter.....but are these different motives, or are they different acts? If we were to agree that they are motives then I would have to agree that motive matters, but I am not there currently.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Nov, 2011 05:40 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

What I was trying to explain was "hate crime" that can be "interpreted" as one by most people. You seem immune to the idea.


I think "hate crime" is a lot like "rape"...everyone thinks they know what it is until we start talking about definitions. Also, most everyone in in favor of state interference only up to the point where the state decides to remove their personal rights, state oppression is fine so long as it is the other guy who is getting oppressed.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Nov, 2011 05:47 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
Your so-called "truth" is subjectively your conclusion, and nobody elses'.
That is a lie, CI.





David
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Nov, 2011 05:48 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Explain why it's a lie?
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Nov, 2011 05:50 pm
@parados,
DAVID wrote:
"The history" does NOT include jurisdiction over emotions
parados wrote:
How do you tell the difference between murder and manslaughter?
It has nothing to do with emotions.
The jury will not be charged to ascertain what defendant was EMOTING.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Nov, 2011 05:52 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
Explain why it's a lie?
CONTRARY to your lie, I care, and I have made that plain.





David
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Nov, 2011 05:56 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
I don't belive that there should be any hate crimes....
Well as I said, lets wait to see what an appeal says. The decision is made and I agree with it. Religious freedom has no qualifiers other than"dont let your religion interfere with mine"
 

Related Topics

nobody respects an oath breaker - Discussion by gungasnake
Is taking his picture legal? - Question by aquestion
"I want to be a lawyer!" -- Frequently Asked Questions - Discussion by joefromchicago
Can a Government Official Claim Religious Exemption from Performing Official Duties? - Discussion by wandeljw
Guilty murderer Amanda Knox - Question by contrex
FOOD NAZI'S SUFFER STUNNING DEFEAT! - Discussion by hawkeye10
Hotelmanagement - Employee dates a guest - Question by lisali93
Question about going to court for a misdemeanor? - Question by Swamp Swagger
JPMorgan Chase Civil Settlement - Discussion by jcboy
Need a Legal Opinion - They Won't Let a Relative Visit From Europe - Discussion by Brandon9000
The Trial that JUST WON'T END - Question by michellesings
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Holy Hell, The State Now feels Free to Add Hate Penalties for IntraGroup Crimes
  3. » Page 3
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/03/2024 at 09:09:05
▲ ▼