Terrorist charged with hate crime

[Indus]

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/chad-horsely-hate-crime-car-crash_us_5aa2de5ee4b086698a9da7a0

A former reserve sheriff’s deputy is facing hate crime charges after telling Louisiana authorities that he plowed his pickup truck into a convenience store because he thought its Sikh owners were Muslim.



Well its a good thing he didn't kill anyone unlike the terrorist in Indiana who killed one and shot many others just because he thought they were Mooslems.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Sounds like a real snowflake. Should nail him for impersonating an officer too.

 

[fskimospy]

I do find it ironic that conservatives are so concerned with terrorism without apparently realizing that most terrorists in the US are conservatives.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

I do find it ironic that conservatives are so concerned with terrorism without apparently realizing that most terrorists in the US are conservatives.

I find it ironic that conservatives usually bitch about “hate crimes” as an unnecessary label since what they did is already a crime but they are the first to yell terrorist at the top of their lungs.

 

[Starbuck1975]

I find it ironic that conservatives usually bitch about “hate crimes” as an unnecessary label since what they did is already a crime but they are the first to yell terrorist at the top of their lungs.

Why is that ironic?

Hate crimes are born of prejudice.

Terrorism is born of politics.

Apples and bananas

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Why is that ironic?

Hate crimes are born of prejudice.

Terrorism is born of politics.

Apples and bananas

Apples and apples. Both are crimes of underlying intent. When it’s a hate crime conservatives yell and scream that murder is already a crime. When it’s terrorism they scream terrorism, even though murder is already a crime.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Apples and apples. Both are crimes of underlying intent. When it’s a hate crime conservatives yell and scream that murder is already a crime. When it’s terrorism they scream yerrorism, even though murder is already a crime.

A hate crime does not necessitate murder. Neither does terrorism.

 

[NAC4EV]

No cure for stupid.
Stupid is forever.

 

[Greenman]

I find it ironic that conservatives usually bitch about “hate crimes” as an unnecessary label since what they did is already a crime but they are the first to yell terrorist at the top of their lungs.

Honestly, I've always had questions about hate crimes. If you shoot someone in the head, does it really mater if hated them first? I get it for crimes of intimidation, but for capital crimes it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.

 

[nickqt]

Honestly, I've always had questions about hate crimes. If you shoot someone in the head, does it really mater if hated them first? I get it for crimes of intimidation, but for capital crimes it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.

Sentencing.

 

[justoh]

Honestly, I've always had questions about hate crimes. If you shoot someone in the head, does it really mater if hated them first? I get it for crimes of intimidation, but for capital crimes it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.

Some people find the intentions of others relevant and/or interesting. They formed societies and institutions to implement their desires and to fulfill certain needs, and then imposed it upon people like you. Just roll with it?

 

[umbrella39]

Honestly, I've always had questions about hate crimes. If you shoot someone in the head, does it really mater if hated them first? I get it for crimes of intimidation, but for capital crimes it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.

So you honestly have had to question the difference in shooting someone in the head only because they are black or white or gay vs because of basically any other reason?

Now do they really HAVE to distinguish the difference. Probably not. Should one vs the other carry more time? If the punishment is either life in prison without the possibility of parole or death row... doesn't seem to make much sense. But for someone to simply beat someone up for being black or white or gay... sure, a little extra time for being a racist/bigoted asshole seems appropriate...

 

[pauldun170]

Attack a federal or state employee, get charged based on specific statutes.
Attack someone based on race or religion, get charged based on specific statutes.

"Why do we need special hate crime laws"?
Society decided to respond to ongoing crimes based on bigotry by putting laws in place to dish out extra punishment.
A man punches someone else in the face over a parking lot dispute will get charged differently than someone who goes up to someone and punches them simply for existing.
That's what hate crimes are all about.
Punishing people who commit crimes against people simply because those people exist.
Someone who does that is a pretty clear danger to society as a whole.

It's not a difficult concept.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Some people find the intentions of others relevant and/or interesting. They formed societies and institutions to implement their desires and to fulfill certain needs, and then imposed it upon people like you. Just roll with it?

Welcome to pretty much every society, where motive is considered.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Attack a federal or state employee, get charged based on specific statutes.
Attack someone based on race or religion, get charged based on specific statutes.

"Why do we need special hate crime laws"?
Society decided to respond to ongoing crimes based on bigotry by putting laws in place to dish out extra punishment.
A man punches someone else in the face over a parking lot dispute will get charged differently than someone who goes up to someone and punches them simply for existing.
That's what hate crimes are all about.
Punishing people who commit crimes against people simply because those people exist.
Someone who does that is a pretty clear danger to society as a whole.

It's not a difficult concept.

Our society also decided that there are pillars to criminal justice. One is due process and the presumption of innocence. The other is the balance of motive vs intent.

Motive is what propels a person to commit a crime. It is subjective.

Intent is the objective evaluation of action and is the basis of severity and sentencing.

Criminal justice traditionally uses motive to help establish guilt, but motive should never factor into sentencing. It is too subjective.

Hate falls under motive, not intent.

The problem with hate crimes is that it imposes punishment not based on the severity of the crime enacted by the individual, and instead adds the weight of prior sins committed by society. The other problem is that hate crimes often gain media attention, due to their polarizing nature, which jeopardizes due process.

Hate crime laws also tend to ensnare the wrong targets. The story of three lesbians beating a gay man at a train station in Boston comes to mind, charged with a hate crime because they used slurs during the altercation.

The idea of hate crimes only further contributes to the balkanization of America.

 

[Ventanni]

It gets very specific when you're dealing with the legality of a crime. Additionally, when you're dealing with a crime, you're not just dealing with the action of it, but also the intent. And this is important, because your hypothetical plot to murder someone may be foiled, but you'll still be charged for the intent if you're caught. This is why you're charged separately.

When dealing with hate crimes and terrorism, the end result is pretty similar, but the motive is different. A hate crime is rooted in prejudice of a given cultural group, whereas terrorism is usually motivated by a political and religious desire to topple a government, governmental system, or support system of a government (like its economy or military). That's also why you sometimes hear the phrase, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." I tend to draw in the distinction between purely political and a hybrid political/religious motive that separates the two.

 

[fskimospy]

Our society also decided that there are pillars to criminal justice. One is due process and the presumption of innocence. The other is the balance of motive vs intent.

Motive is what propels a person to commit a crime. It is subjective.

Intent is the objective evaluation of action and is the basis of severity and sentencing.

Criminal justice traditionally uses motive to help establish guilt, but motive should never factor into sentencing. It is too subjective.

Hate falls under motive, not intent.

The problem with hate crimes is that it imposes punishment not based on the severity of the crime enacted by the individual, and instead adds the weight of prior sins committed by society. The other problem is that hate crimes often gain media attention, due to their polarizing nature, which jeopardizes due process.

Hate crime laws also tend to ensnare the wrong targets. The story of three lesbians beating a gay man at a train station in Boston comes to mind, charged with a hate crime because they used slurs during the altercation.

The idea of hate crimes only further contributes to the balkanization of America.

We enacted hate crime laws for a very specific reason: right wing terrorist groups like the KKK were systematically targeting black people and other racial minorities in order to terrorize them and ostracize them from the community. It’s hard enough to live in a society where people are mustered, it’s downright horrifying to live in a society where you know you’re being targeted for murder. Because of the additional damage to society these types of targeted killings inflict they are punished more severely.

Makes sense to me.

 

[pauldun170]

Our society also decided that there are pillars to criminal justice. One is due process and the presumption of innocence. The other is the balance of motive vs intent.

Motive is what propels a person to commit a crime. It is subjective.

Intent is the objective evaluation of action and is the basis of severity and sentencing.

Criminal justice traditionally uses motive to help establish guilt, but motive should never factor into sentencing. It is too subjective.

Hate falls under motive, not intent.

The problem with hate crimes is that it imposes punishment not based on the severity of the crime enacted by the individual, and instead adds the weight of prior sins committed by society. The other problem is that hate crimes often gain media attention, due to their polarizing nature, which jeopardizes due process.

Hate crime laws also tend to ensnare the wrong targets. The story of three lesbians beating a gay man at a train station in Boston comes to mind, charged with a hate crime because they used slurs during the altercation.

The idea of hate crimes only further contributes to the balkanization of America.

I'll say it one more time..
A person who attacks someone simply for existing is more of a danger to society than someone who attacks for other common reasons.
If you attack someone because they are gay or muslim because they are a certain race, that implies that you are a danger to anyone who fits that criteria. You are judged to be a danger to segment of society.

Adding weight to punishment when someone proves a threat to ALL members of a segment of society is justified.
Acts that target only segments of society have far reaching impacts. It shapes society.
Attacking every or any jew in who lives in your town creates a hostile environment that has far reaching implications.
Murdering a gay man simply because he held another guys hand has far reaching implications. Stabbing a black man simply because he was walking in a white neighborhood has far reaching implications.

We have child protection laws. We have laws protecting law enforcement. We have laws in place defining how we treat acts where the perpetrator commits acts based on a class of people.
The law is our way of saying that crimes committed against members of society due to race, creed or sexual orientation is unacceptable and deserves extra punishment.

 

[HomerJS]

Honestly, I've always had questions about hate crimes. If you shoot someone in the head, does it really mater if hated them first? I get it for crimes of intimidation, but for capital crimes it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.

Its the same reason we have distinct crimes for murder or attempted murder of public officials. Who they are makes them specific targets. Racism/antisemitism makes a segment of the population these targets vs being a victim of a random crime.

 

[umbrella39]

Welcome to pretty much every society, where motive is considered.

And here I was thinking he was simply trying to paint the perps of race motivated crimes as the real victims...

 

[HomerJS]

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/chad-horsely-hate-crime-car-crash_us_5aa2de5ee4b086698a9da7a0

A former reserve sheriff’s deputy is facing hate crime charges after telling Louisiana authorities that he plowed his pickup truck into a convenience store because he thought its Sikh owners were Muslim.



Well its a good thing he didn't kill anyone unlike the terrorist in Indiana who killed one and shot many others just because he thought they were Mooslems.

Prediction: There will be no statement from POTUS because white people can't be terrorists, especially when crimes are against people of color. Oddly enough its the same crime that occurred in France which was followed by a barrage of tweets from Heir President

 

[ch33zw1z]

And here I was thinking he was simply trying to paint the perps of race motivated crimes as the real victims...

Just read every single one of his posts in the archer voice and context, it makes more sense

 

[Jhhnn]

Why is that ironic?

Hate crimes are born of prejudice.

Terrorism is born of politics.

Apples and bananas

Are the politics of Trumpism not born of prejudice? Of course they are. That's not even debatable. Steve Bannon was his chief strategist. He created much of the message.

The problem with that kind of message is that some individuals will inevitably act upon it, either alone or in organized groups.

Hate crime? Shee-it. Broadcasting the original message is a calculated crime against humanity.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Prediction: There will be no statement from POTUS because white people can't be terrorists, especially when crimes are against people of color. Oddly enough its the same crime that occurred in France which was followed by a barrage of tweets from Heir President

Huh. . . . I was going to correct your German spelling. It dawns on me that you made a pun. He's an "heir" and shares attributes with "Herr Hitler."

 

[Starbuck1975]

The problem with that kind of message is that some individuals will inevitably act upon it, either alone or in organized groups.

Yes, like the guy who shot up the Congressional Republicans and that other guy who assasinated police in Dallas and that other guy who drove his car into a group of counter protestors.