Hate Crime Charges in Maryland McDonald's Beating Caught On Video

should tagging your name on a wall carry the same penalty as painting swastikas and die jews on the side of a synogogue?

 

Yes...one is vandalism one is a threat on someones life. But we already have laws for that.

 

Hate works in all directions.

 

differnt laws? but its the same crime of vandalism....

 

painting swaztikas or painting "mow your lawn or I'll kill you" on someone's house = same crime..... threat.

Is it more of a crime to threaten someone's life if they are a Jew?


Tagging your name on a wall - no threat.... just vandalism

 

ok how about just swastikas?

 

I have drawn plenty of swaztikas in my life..... you can't police my thoughts as to the intent..... (FWIW - my swaztikas were drawn in a historical standpoint but good thing a Jew didn't see them or I could have been fired from teaching, huh)

Painting a Swaztika on a Jew's house.... vandalism

If they keep doing it - stalking/harrassment

 

Its obvoius conservatives either wont or cant grasp the problems with allowing minorites to be targets for harrassment and intimidation...

luckily nobody seems to care what they think on this.

 

No one is allowing minorities to be targets of harassment and intimidation.

If someone defaces another person's property, makes threats or assaults them all those acts are against the law.

But minorities are not entitled to special protection that the majority does not get.

 

its not the act its the specific targetting of a group for intimidation...

like I said, its clear that righties wont/cant grasp that.

 

that's the point.... I could keep doing the same crime (harrassment/intimidation) to a white guy "mow your lawn you White Trash P.O.S"

or a jew "Mow your lawn you dirty Jew (insert Swazstika) P.O.S."

hate crime for one
no hate crime for the other.


you just refuse to think that simple criminals can commit crimes without everything being about race, even when it's a white criminal and minority victim


Since women are legally a minority, is raping them a hate crime, too? Should we now pass more legislation that differentiates between regular rape and hatecrime rape?

 

again youre just making up (*)(*)(*)(*)

whites ARE victims of hate crimes....17% of them actually.

you continue to make the same moronic claim that a robbery for money, or a rape (for whatever makes people rape) can be a hate crime even though the race or religion had nothing to do with the reason behind the crime.

if you were out just to rob white people, or out just to rape jews.......but robbing for money doesnt make it a hate crime

 

only if you aren't white. Whites can be targetted.


Let me ask, if someone spraypainted "Whitey-cracka" on my house, and I retaliated and said "lazy (n-word)" on his house.....

do both of us get hit with a hate crime?
just me?
just the black guy since he started it.

 

the white women (a minority)
the gay men
the transgendered men

not the straight, white christian men

but people with an agenda can make it look like it was a hate crime for revenge.

 

How about we just don't allow anyone to be the target of harassment and intimidation? We could have laws that say you can't intimidate or harass people at all, and we wouldn't have to make skin color or whatever a factor in it.

 

it really isnt a factor now...

the issue is groups being targetted for intimidation....I see no reason to allow it and no harm is trying to prevent it.

Should I feel sorry for someone bigot who attacks someone because of their race, religion etc etc?

 

wrong, if its classified as a hate crime against whites its because they were attacked because they are white.

no idea who that vague conspiracy theory is referring to or what its talking about

 

Intimidation is illegal anyway, though. Why does it matter whether the group was targeted because of their ethnicity or because of some other reason?

It's not about feeling sorry for a criminal for anything. It's about the principal that the only distinction between a guy getting charged with assault and a guy getting charged with assault as a hate crime is the emotion/thought of hate. It's literally punishing someone more for their thoughts. Why is "I beat that guy up because I hate his skin color" some how worse than "I beat that guy up because he looked at me funny?"

 

wrong, its the spcific targetting of someone simply because they are a member of some group

beating people up for their skin color is specific and planned intimidation.....

its not different than killing your wife wehn you catch her (*)(*)(*)(*)ing the neighbor....

vs.

catching her (*)(*)(*)(*)ing the neighbor and plotting for 2 years to kill her....and then doing it.

why is one worse?

 

is drug posession with INTENT to distribute a thought crime?

 

Because it has much worse consequences. Hate crimes tend to invite cycles or retaliation. Where a regular assault pretty much only harms the victim, a hate crime sometimes sparks a whole series of assaults that harm many people. Also, they are used to coerce other people in the targeted group into leaving the neighborhood, staying in the closet, closing their business, whatever, so that's an additional crime. Also the people that do those kinds of things are usually dedicated members of hate organizations. Like the mob or a gang, it just takes more of a stick to scare the kind of people that are involved in that kind of thing that into following the law.

The law identifies all kinds of scenarios where the judge can add on extra penalties because the crime is more dangerous for the community. Selling drugs in school zones, assault committed as part of a scheme to extort money, selling drugs with a gun, crimes that are part of an ongoing criminal enterprise, gang violence, etc, etc. Legislators tend to prefer to keep the maximum penalties for things fairly low to prevent judges from throwing the book at some dude that just got in a bar fight, but at the same time, they acknowledge that there are some assaults that are just categorically more serious crimes than a bar fight, so they make these kinds of penalty enhancements.

It's not about thoughts. You can't add a hate crime penalty enhancement on because of something the defendant thought, or even something they said. They need to have made tangible preparations in advance. Typically that is like a hate organization that meets, buys supplies, draws up maps, etc, as part of their plan to find and target a victim based on their race, religion or sexual orientation.

 

Intimidating anyone for any reason is a planned and specific act. Since doing it over the fact of someone's skin color is no different, it should be classified simply as a premeditated crime without the "hate" part tacked on. Premeditated crimes are worse than those of passion or opportunity because the criminal had the opportunity to consider that his/her actions are wrong and still went through with it. Planning a crime is illegal, incidentally. Hate isn't.

 

As far as I'm concerned, yes.

 

its essentially proving premiditation toward attacking someone in a group.....which isnt as difficult to prove as specific premeditation about the specific victim who is often chosen at random....

look at it as a way to not allow violent criminals to escape premeditation type sentences for a premeditated crime with a random victim.....essentially closing a loophole.

 

I can always at least respect a position that is consistent.

+rep (if it lets me)