Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is just interesting to think that a person can be charged with a hate crime against a person when in fact that person doesn't even belong to the group being protected.
I understand your point, and at first it might seem odd. But take a more clear-cut example. Say a man killed another person who he thought was Jewish. He's screaming anti-Semitic statements the whole time, and cutting swastikas into the body, say. Then it turns out that he was just mistaken, and the victim wasn't Jewish.
I'd say that it still makes sense to charge him with a hate crime.
Are you going to post YOUR thoughts on this? You post this but with no input.
And you did the same.
What are your thoughts?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcadca
Why come to a debate board and post if you are not going to post your views that is the point is it not?
This is not a debate board.
What are your thoughts?
Just here to argue with the OP?
______
Apparently the jury thought that there was a preponderance of the evidence showing it was a hate crime.
I can't understand why people think it's okay to kill anyone for any reason.
It would depend on the situation. If prosecutors believe that you attacked someone because of his sexual orientation (or religion, race, gender, disability, etc.), then yes, you can be charged with a hate crime, regardless of what words were used during the attack. The words used don't matter as much as the motivation behind the crime.
Not sure exactly how this particular law reads, but don't most hate crimes laws say something about 'perceived sexuality'? Meaning, the victim would not necessarily have to be what the perpetrator thinks they are. Also, there ARE still those who consider male to female transgenders and transsexuals to be 'gay men in dresses'.
"A jury on Friday convicted a man of manslaughter as a hate crime for killing a transgender woman he shot outside a house party last year."
"several witnesses said they heard DeLee refer to Green as a "fagg0t" just before Green was shot with a .22-caliber rifle while sitting in a parked car outside the party"
I mean, there are killings and assaults all over the nation every day that involves so many more and different varieties of people.
Some black guy kills "somebody" because he has "rage".
Some white guy kills "somebody" because his wife cheated on him.
Some mobster kills "somebody" because his turf was violated.
Are these all not just hate crimes in and of themselves??
Your post can just as easily qualify as just another typical American tragedy with regard to hate, can it not?
I'm failing to see the significance here as it might relate to all of the other murders that happen in this country every day ...
I suppose that by this, we should create a law that protects idiots and morons too ... because there are more folks getting killed in this country that are or would be, idiots and morons than any other.
Hate is hate, regardless of the motive or intent .. I'll lump all, who have no care for human life, into the same pot.
Last edited by bigskydude; 07-18-2009 at 08:42 AM..
Originally Posted by nature's message Man?? More like disgusting creature.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reelist in Atlanta
Here is an example of someone who would most likely be more than happy to see a transsexual woman killed for no other reason than the fact that she was transsexual. I wonder who else is included in his category of those to hate. Maybe Mr. Nature could enlighten us and tell us who else needs to be killed. Perhaps those born with the sexual organs of both sexes and happen to identify as the wrong sex according to the Nature Man? Perhaps those with different religious beliefs? Perhaps anyone who is different? Everyone should be exactly like the Nature Man or they need to be killed. But the Nature Man is full of hate so if everyone was like the Nature Man everyone would be full of hate. I guess that would be a wonderful world according to the Nature Man.
- Reel
I can't really speak for nature's message, but that's not what I got out of that reply. I think the 'disgusting creature' is meant to be the man who did the crime.
I understand your point, and at first it might seem odd. But take a more clear-cut example. Say a man killed another person who he thought was Jewish. He's screaming anti-Semitic statements the whole time, and cutting swastikas into the body, say. Then it turns out that he was just mistaken, and the victim wasn't Jewish.
I'd say that it still makes sense to charge him with a hate crime.
And I think that's why most hate crimes laws use the word 'perceived'. Because, unless the victim has stated his/her religion, sexual orientation, gender ID and such to the perpetrator, whether or not it can be called a hate crime depends on what the perpetrator thought the victim was. And what they thought the victim was is determined by their language while doing (or even before actually doing) the crime.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
