Swastika-Branding Case First To Be Charged Under New Hate Crimes Law
57 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Habsburg;26422053]“shaped a coat hanger into a swastika, placed it on a heated stove and branded the symbol on the arm of the mentally disabled Navajo man.” [/QUOTE]
the fuck
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;26422148]It's one thing to commit hate crimes against races you want out of your country, but to do it to a member of a race you STOLE THE COUNTRY FROM takes white pride onto a level of gall never before seen.[/QUOTE]
That's always been a ridiculous argument.
[media]http://jtsmoviepage.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/inglourious-basterds.jpg[/media]
the perps watched this too much
Hate crime laws are bullshit. Offenses should not have a different punishment based on the skin color, sexual preference or general stupidity of the people involved.
[QUOTE=Ridge;26436323]Hate crime laws are bullshit. Offenses should not have a different punishment based on the skin color, sexual preference or general stupidity of the people involved.[/QUOTE]
And if a black man assaults a white man, and the white man calls a hate crime, he'll be laughed at.
[QUOTE=MightyMax;26436429]And if a black man assaults a white man, and the white man calls a hate crime, he'll be laughed at.[/QUOTE]
Well, I don't think that happens very often.
Also, I'm still stalking you for your avatar.
[QUOTE=Ridge;26436323]Hate crime laws are bullshit. Offenses should not have a different punishment based on the skin color, sexual preference or general stupidity of the people involved.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Zeke129;26432995]No, do I need to keep explaining this?
To convict someone of a hate crime, you need to prove that the person did it [b]because of[/b] race, religion, sexuality, disability, so forth. If this can be proven, and they are convicted of a hate crime, they receive a harsher sentence because it shows a pattern of behaviour that indicates the person is likely to commit a similar crime against that group of people again in the future.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Habsburg;26437438][/QUOTE]
Yes but shouldn't he just be charged with kidnapping and branding the guy? Race shouldn't be an issue one way or another. Who cares if a person goes only after blacks or whites, that is irrelevant.
[QUOTE=Bepo5;26437628]Yes but shouldn't he just be charged with kidnapping and branding the guy? Race shouldn't be an issue one way or another. Who cares if a person goes only after blacks or whites, that is irrelevant.[/QUOTE]
If a person only goes after blacks or whites it's extremely relevant, why is everyone ignoring my post
[QUOTE=Zeke129;26437930]If a person only goes after blacks or whites it's extremely relevant, why is everyone ignoring my post[/QUOTE]
But even if it is because of race, I feel that it should be irrelevant. If you punched a guy because he is white or black, who cares. The court should press charges based on the action, not on the intent or reason.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;26422204]Is this the new backpedal?
"Hang them upside down and force feed them their own feces" is just an idiom for rehabilitate them and return them to society jeeze[/QUOTE]
Here,
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figure_of_speech[/url]
[quote]shaped a coat hanger into a swastika, placed it on a heated stove and branded the symbol on the arm of the mentally disabled Navajo man[/quote] Holy shit.
[QUOTE=Bepo5;26438050]But even if it is because of race, I feel that it should be irrelevant. If you punched a guy because he is white or black, who cares. The court should press charges based on the action, not on the intent or reason.[/QUOTE]
Intent is the difference between murder and manslaughter, it plays a HUGE role in law
[QUOTE=Bepo5;26438050]But even if it is because of race, I feel that it should be irrelevant. If you punched a guy because he is white or black, who cares. The court should press charges based on the action, not on the intent or reason.[/QUOTE]
That's not how court works.
There are two parts you want to consider before taking someone to court. Mens Rea and Actus Reus(Guilty mind and guilty act, respectively.)
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;26438100]Here,
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figure_of_speech[/url][/QUOTE]
"Hang 'em high" isn't an idiom where I'm from, it means to hang someone.
While you're looking things up on Wikipedia look up dialects
[QUOTE=Zeke129;26438433]Intent is the difference between murder and manslaughter, it plays a HUGE role in law[/QUOTE]
Sort of. Manslaughter is just not planned. But I have to agree with Bepo. If you got arrested for being racist, that is essentially infringing on our freedom of beliefs. I don't agree with everyone's beliefs, but I have to respect them, and if they do anything illegal, charge them for the crime, not their thoughts.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;26438453]"Hang 'em high" isn't an idiom where I'm from, it means to hang someone.
While you're looking things up on Wikipedia look up dialects[/QUOTE]
This crime took place in America. I used an American idiom. Just because you're Canadian and didn't get it doesn't mean you have to whine about it.
[QUOTE=Habsburg;26438452]That's not how court works.
There are two parts you want to consider before taking someone to court. Mens Rea and Actus Reus(Guilty mind and guilty act, respectively.)[/QUOTE]
I understand that the court of course wants to factor in intent, but for such a petty thing as race is racism in and of itself. Humans should be treated as humans equally in the courts, is that too much to ask?
Manslaughter is of course a whole other issue, the death of a person is a very serious thing, as it should be and intent certainly needs to be factored in for that, but to add on a hate crime for every time a crime is committed for the purpose of race is merely bogging down the court with an extra uneccessary charge. Maybe if we treated humans as humans and ignored the fact that a man is black or white, racism would eventually die down in society. Though I suppose that's pretty optimistic.
[QUOTE=Bepo5;26438050]But even if it is because of race, I feel that it should be irrelevant. If you punched a guy because he is white or black, who cares. The court should press charges based on the action, not on the intent or reason.[/QUOTE]
The saying used to be "Justice is blind."
No longer the case, it seems...
[QUOTE=Bepo5;26438619]I understand that the court of course wants to factor in intent, but for such a petty thing as race is racism in and of itself. Humans should be treated as humans equally in the courts, is that too much to ask?
Manslaughter is of course a whole other issue, the death of a person is a very serious thing, as it should be and intent certainly needs to be factored in for that, but to add on a hate crime for every time a crime is committed for the purpose of race is merely bogging down the court with an extra uneccessary charge. Maybe if we treated humans as humans and ignored the fact that a man is black or white, racism would eventually die down in society. Though I suppose that's pretty optimistic.[/QUOTE]
The point is that if someone does it because he has some hate towards that race that person is more likely to do it again than lets say someone that hates a person. There's only one of the person, there's a whole lot more of a race.
Well there is a difference in assaulting someone because he hit your wife or threw stones at your kid and assaulting some innocent person simply because you don't like something about him that he didn't have a saying in.
That should at least be considered.
[QUOTE=The mouse;26427960]Discriminating against Nazis :v:[/QUOTE]
nazis are not welcome in my world
what a bunch of wannabe (also moronic) neo-Nazi bitches
they deserved to get smacked by the long dick of the law
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;26438496]This crime took place in America. I used an American idiom. Just because you're Canadian and didn't get it doesn't mean you have to whine about it.[/QUOTE]
You're the one whining about someone not understanding a seemingly American-exclusive idiom on an internationally accessed forum run by a British guy
Your country isn't the centre of the world
[editline]2nd December 2010[/editline]
[QUOTE=shatteredwindow;26438482]Sort of. Manslaughter is just not planned. But I have to agree with Bepo. If you got arrested for being racist, that is essentially infringing on our freedom of beliefs. I don't agree with everyone's beliefs, but I have to respect them, and if they do anything illegal, charge them for the crime, not their thoughts.[/QUOTE]
So should first and second degree murder be combined into just "murder"?
[QUOTE=Zeke129;26446970]You're the one whining about someone not understanding a seemingly American-exclusive idiom on an internationally accessed forum run by a British guy
Your country isn't the centre of the world
[/QUOTE]
Not the center of the world, but it's the center of this thread and discussion as this topic is [I]in[/I] America.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;26447315]Not the center of the world, but it's the center of this thread and discussion as this topic is [I]in[/I] America.[/QUOTE]
The amount of disagrees you got seems to indicate that most people reading the thread don't get your idiom
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;26422176]You do realize that "Hang 'em high" is a term referring to "give them a harsh punishment", not actually "hang them"?[/QUOTE]
[citation needed]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.