Perchoutofwater Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 Is this a hate crime? This is one of the many reasons my wife and I took the concealed handgun license class earlier this week. You shoot a few of the thugs and I'd be willing to bet the rest of them run away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 (edited) Seriously - aren't almost all violent crimes "hate" crimes regardless of what color/race/gender is involved? Hell yes, it's a hate crime. I don't know if it fits into the politically correct definition of hate crime, though. In the PC world, are minorities capable of hate or empowered enough to hate? Edited July 9, 2009 by Bronco Billy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazinib1 Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 Reverse the color of those involved and re-ask the question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted July 9, 2009 Author Share Posted July 9, 2009 Seriously - aren't almsot all violent crimes "hate" crimes regardless of what color/race/gender is involved? Hell yes, it's a hate crime. I don't know if it fits into the politically correct definition of hate crime, though. In te PC world, are minorities capable of hate or empowered enough to hate? I've always found "hate crimes" to be redundant. I don't think we should have any "hate crime" legislation at all. I was just wondering if those that support such legislation would view this as a hate crime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furd Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 Myself, I love the victims of my crimes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 I've always found "hate crimes" to be redundant. I don't think we should have any "hate crime" legislation at all. I was just wondering if those that support such legislation would view this as a hate crime. If it wasn't for the KKK, Hitler, and Crusades then there might not be a term such as hate crime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 Definately a hate crime. Too bad this cat can't seem to afford health insurance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godtomsatan Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 Is this a hate crime? This is one of the many reasons my wife and I took the concealed handgun license class earlier this week. You shoot a few of the thugs and I'd be willing to bet the rest of them run away. Unfortunately, you're probably more likely to shoot each other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 Unfortunately, you're probably more likely to shoot each other. FAIL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted July 9, 2009 Author Share Posted July 9, 2009 Unfortunately, you're probably more likely to shoot each other. Your comment has no basis, either statistically or anecdotely, particularly since you've never seen me or my wife shoot. My wife and I are both pretty good shots, as we practice often. We both put in more range time than the average cop does in a year. So, please tell me what you base this on, or are you just talking out of your ass again? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 I've always found "hate crimes" to be redundant. I don't think we should have any "hate crime" legislation at all. I was just wondering if those that support such legislation would view this as a hate crime. For starters, yes this is a hate crime. Plain and simple. That said, I don't see why the notion of hate crimes is so hard to understand. Obviously nobody robs someone because they like them, but that doesn't make every robbery a hate crime. And yes, I do think it's important to make that distinction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted July 9, 2009 Author Share Posted July 9, 2009 (edited) ETA: I changed the link, as it was the wrong one. Edited July 9, 2009 by Perchoutofwater Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 For starters, yes this is a hate crime. Plain and simple. That said, I don't see why the notion of hate crimes is so hard to understand. Obviously nobody robs someone because they like them, but that doesn't make every robbery a hate crime. And yes, I do think it's important to make that distinction. So a murdered person is less dead and his murderer deserving of less punishment because of the motivation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 ETA: I changed the link, as it was the wrong one. Protecting preachers entirely from examination of how what they say could contribute to hate crimes seems like a dangerous thing to do. That isn't to say that if somenoe quotes the bible and says homosexuality is a sin that he should be arrested if some nut job takes that to mean he should go kill a gay dude. However, if a reasonable person could interpret what that preacher said to mean that we should punish gay people or some such, then hell yes, dude should be implicated. Just because you're in a "house of god" doesn't mean you should be able to say whatever you want without consequence. I mean, what if someone founded the Church of The Third Reich? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted July 9, 2009 Author Share Posted July 9, 2009 Protecting preachers entirely from examination of how what they say could contribute to hate crimes seems like a dangerous thing to do. That isn't to say that if somenoe quotes the bible and says homosexuality is a sin that he should be arrested if some nut job takes that to mean he should go kill a gay dude. However, if a reasonable person could interpret what that preacher said to mean that we should punish gay people or some such, then hell yes, dude should be implicated. Just because you're in a "house of god" doesn't mean you should be able to say whatever you want without consequence. I mean, what if someone founded the Church of The Third Reich? So free speech is ok, unless it is for something you are against, or against something you are for? Got it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 So a murdered person is less dead and his murderer deserving of less punishment because of the motivation? Why is Hitler worse than anyone else who wanted to take over the world? Now, of course you went right to murder because that's the one place that it matters less than anything else. If you kill someone because you were trying to rob their watch it doesn't much matter. You just killed someone and are now a murderer. The part where it matters is where you distinguish someone beating the crap out of someone who had, say slept with your wife versus you and your buddies coming up on some random gay/jewish/black person and beating him up because you don't like his type in your neighborhood. It's not like the first guy should just get off without punishment because you can't just go around beating people up. But it's a far cry from doing something to someone who you don't even know because of their religion, race, or lifestyle choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 So free speech is ok, unless it is for something you are against, or against something you are for? Got it. Does it count as free speech if a preacher tells you to go find a jew and beat him up? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted July 9, 2009 Author Share Posted July 9, 2009 (edited) Does it count as free speech if a preacher tells you to go find a jew and beat him up? Do you do everything your preacher tells you to do? I don't either. And it's a damn good thing Obama doesn't either. Edited July 9, 2009 by Perchoutofwater Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swampnuts Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 Is this a hate crime? This is one of the many reasons my wife and I took the concealed handgun license class earlier this week. You shoot a few of the thugs and I'd be willing to bet the rest of them run away. I find this really interesting Perch. I'm curious to know what you would have done in this similar situation. Would you and your wife have pulled your guns on a bunch of unarmed teenagers? A gun does not diffuse a violent situation does it? Can you imagine the public backlash and the negative spin the press would put out on a white male that pulled a gun on a bunch of black teenagers? I know you feel like you're just protecting yourself and your family, but I think running around with a pistol in your belt opens you up to as much danger as you may deter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 (edited) Do you do everything your preacher tells you to do? I don't either. And it's a damn good thing Obama doesn't either. We do not punish people who abuse their power because many can think for themselves, we do because others can't. Just because you have enough sense to say, "screw this, I'm finding another church", doesn't mean that dude should never be implicated if he convinces others to perform crimes. It's not that hard to see. So, just think about it. Say a bunch of gays get murdered in some town. Come to find out that all the guys who killed them all attended the same "church". Then transcripts of what the leader of that church come out and he basically says, "God wants you to kill a gay man this week." Are you saying that this guy should not be implicated in these crimes? ETA: Osama Bin Laden didn't fly those planes into the twin towers. All he did was essentially run a "church" that taught people that they should fly planes into the twin towers. By your logic, going after him means we hate the American way. Edited July 9, 2009 by detlef Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted July 9, 2009 Author Share Posted July 9, 2009 I find this really interesting Perch. I'm curious to know what you would have done in this similar situation. Would you and your wife have pulled your guns on a bunch of unarmed teenagers? A gun does not diffuse a violent situation does it? Can you imagine the public backlash and the negative spin the press would put out on a white male that pulled a gun on a bunch of black teenagers? I know you feel like you're just protecting yourself and your family, but I think running around with a pistol in your belt opens you up to as much danger as you may deter. If me and my wife are sitting in my front yard talking to a couple of friends, and a group of people regardless of race attacked my friend, you bet I'd pull the my gun. I'd fire a warning shot provided I don't see any weapons, but if they continued to attack, I'd have no problem shooting them. If I did see a weapon, then I would just open fire with no warning shots. Under those scenario, the state of Texas would not file any charges against me. PC S9.33. DEFENSE OF THIRD PERSON. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect a third person if: (I) under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31 or 9.32 in using force or deadly force to protect himself against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and (2) the actor reasonably believes that his intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted July 9, 2009 Author Share Posted July 9, 2009 We do not punish people who abuse their power because many can think for themselves, we do because others can't. Just because you have enough sense to say, "screw this, I'm finding another church", doesn't mean that dude should never be implicated if he convinces others to perform crimes. It's not that hard to see. So, just think about it. Say a bunch of gays get murdered in some town. Come to find out that all the guys who killed them all attended the same "church". Then transcripts of what the leader of that church come out and he basically says, "God wants you to kill a gay man this week." Are you saying that this guy should not be implicated in these crimes? ETA: Osama Bin Laden didn't fly those planes into the twin towers. All he did was essentially run a "church" that taught people that they should fly planes into the twin towers. By your logic, going after him means we hate the American way. I think he did a little more than talking, didn't he actually help to fund it? There is a difference there, I'm sure you can see that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swampnuts Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 If me and my wife are sitting in my front yard talking to a couple of friends, and a group of people regardless of race attacked my friend, you bet I'd pull the my gun. I'd fire a warning shot provided I don't see any weapons, but if they continued to attack, I'd have no problem shooting them. If I did see a weapon, then I would just open fire with no warning shots. Under those scenario, the state of Texas would not file any charges against me. PC S9.33. DEFENSE OF THIRD PERSON. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect a third person if: (I) under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31 or 9.32 in using force or deadly force to protect himself against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and (2) the actor reasonably believes that his intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person. I was just curious. Even though I was pretty sure I knew the answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 ETA: Osama Bin Laden didn't fly those planes into the twin towers. All he did was essentially run a "church" that taught people that they should fly planes into the twin towers. By your logic, going after him means we hate the American way. miserable, pathetic fail. conspiring in the commission of a crime is a far cry from the weak, contorted logic of "incitement" in the hate crimes laws. the indictment against bin laden doesn't invoke the hate crime laws, for good reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted July 9, 2009 Author Share Posted July 9, 2009 I was just curious. Even though I was pretty sure I knew the answer. What would you do, take the beating and hope they stopped short of killing you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.