"Hate Crime", and it's terrible implications

Father, son get life for hate crime in Ahmaud Arbery’s death (cnbc.com)
I read that the father and Son were sentenced to life for killing that Ahmaud Arbery and we know the reason for it.

What I believe why there are these "Hate Crimes" that are cause by so-called white supremacy groups such as the Nazis and Ku Klux Klan and others is because they are out to eliminate a certain race group and erase it from our society and possibly the face of the earth along with its existence and history like it never happened. Adolf Hitler tried to do this this with Jewish people in Germany and kill them all off along other races and creeds and when he was done, there would only be white blond hair blue eyed people left and have it like there would always be white fair skinned, blond-haired, blue-eyed people in existence. All others would be in oblivion forever.

 

Only one of them actually "killed" Arbery.

You can see that Travis, the one who shot him, was very reluctant to. He did not want to have to shoot.
When Arbery had previously seemed to try to make a run at him before, he had pointed the gun at him and tried to get him to move away.
Later, even when Arbery did run up to Travis and tried to pull his gun away from him, Travis did not immediately shoot. It was only after Arbery kept yanking on the gun and came close to overpowering him, that he shot. That is not a man who is anxious to kill.

 

Err.... speaking from professional experience? The above is not correct. Some crimes have no obvious motive (beyond random acts of drug induced violence and/or mental illness etc combined with sheer bad luck on the part of the victim). But in most cases of violent crime (and crime in general) involving apparently 'random' victims motive is usually known by the time the matter gets to trial. For example if a kid gets mugged on the street and the his/her wallet, phone and sports shoes etc stolen the implied motive becomes pretty obvious pretty quickly - absent other explanations coming to light later. In other words at law inferences can be drawn from the evidence.

Beyond that motive is often uncovered via Police during interviews with the suspect or via other inquiries into their history/background. And even if those avenues reveal nothing usually the defendant informs his lawyer or a court appointed psychologist of the reasons for their crime - the lawyer usually needs this information to help frame if not a defense then at least mitigation. So no, not necessarily true. In most crimes the motive is capable of determination.

 

By your silly standards, no one would ever get a murder conviction since there is just no way to be certain of what someone else is thinking.

I'm guessing you haven't studied law. Neither have I, but I do understand this much. Applying criminal law is not generally a matter of mathematical precision and boolean true/false values. There is always some degree of certainty and some degree of doubt. Juries render a verdict based on the evidence and arguments presented versus what is defined in law, deciding whether the evidence is sufficient to support a conviction. In the case of hate crime, this includes determining whether the evidence is sufficient to establish a that a crime, typically one involving violence, "is motivated by prejudice on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation, or other grounds."

You were not involved in the trial, so I'm guessing you are not as familiar with the facts of the case as the jury members were. Given that you generally express wacky opinions and evidently have a strong anti-media bias as well, I find it a reasonable conclusion that you probably don't know anything at all about the facts of the case because none of the sources you rely on even make an effort to offer informative, objective reporting, but rather all operate on an extreme bias in order to cater to an audience seeking a particularly slanted version events that supports a pre-existing bias that is, of course, pro-white, anti-western, pro-Russian, anti-science, pro every conspiracy theory ever conceived, and generally all-around toxic.

 

Why in the hell are you putting "killed" in quotation marks?

Your personal bias in this matter is truly awe-inspiring.

 

What are your claims here, Durandal? That they wanted to kill him? That they planned to kill him?

It's not even entirely 100% clear they were going to actually arrest him. The evidence shown in the video makes it look like they were not willing to actually grab him, but were trying to slow him down or get him to stop in other ways.

Blocking someone's path as they are running away from you seems like a stretch to be categorizing as "false imprisonment". Definitely does not seem to be the same level of bad as an arrest or kidnapping.

(And we all know even if they had carried out an arrest, they would have called the police and would only have been holding the suspect in the belief or hope that police could do something. Maybe Gregory McMichael suspected he might have stolen valuables or a burglary tool in his pockets)

 

I don't think you quite understand what a hate crime is. It is not the passing emotion of hate/anger.

Do you acknowledge, with the examples that I have given that your statement:

"it will be worth watching to see if non-white Americans start being charged with "hate crimes". When they don't (and we all know they won't)

...is based on a false premise. Are you going to remove that from your OP?

 

Everybody observe: Redefinition of what a "hate crime" is.
The definition will just continue to expand. Things will be labeled "hate crimes" that weren't before.
Even things that might not have been seen as crimes before could be labeled "hate crimes" and prosecuted.

 

Because according to some people's perspective, it was a justified killing, Arbery gave Travis no other choice (in that moment), Arbery killed himself, some might even say.
(what happens if you pull a gun out at police?)

 

Man oh man. If the races were reversed, you wouldn't give a crap about those guys. You would assume they were justly convicted, assuming that whatever fake news you rely on would have even told you about it.

 

Exactly my point.

And even when a motive is surmised via 'evidence', there's no possible way of determining the emotional state of the perp in the moment. Hate is a feeling, and it's parameters are therefore entirely personal. What one person calls hate, could be another's indifference. It's a pure absurdity to think of it as a fixed and knowable state.

 

Indeed. It should be cause for great concern, for all these reasons.

I would urge anyone who is okay with it today - purely because it happens to align with their current politics - to consider how they'll view such dangerous power once it's in the hands of their enemy (as it surely will be, at some point). Would you like Trump to have this power of you? How about Russia, or China?

 

If there's anything you need, it's less concern. You're always wringing your hands over some non-issue.

 

Oddly enough, this is a political forum. It's entire purpose is 'hand wringing'. How long would you stay if every thread was a friendly chat about the weather?

I'm guessing my last post irritated an itch of some kind. Well I mean .. good!

 

Again no. Hate is an emotional state but it strongly influences behavior. A person who commits a 'hate' crime will in all but the rarest of exceptions have demonstrated that hate in other lessor ways on previous occasions, either by deeds or words. Hence my comment about Police inquiries into the background of the offender often revealing their motive. Interviews with friends, family and work colleagues, internet posts, previous arrest reports, memberships and associations etc. They all tend to reveal underlying motivations.

 

That is an interesting observation, but of course I prefer hand-wringing over real issues rather than made-up ones.

No, nothing you've posted causes me any annoyance. Well, except for that part where you posted "it's" instead of "its," of course.

As for the political forum part, I would prefer reasonable discussion and debate with people who have a firm grip on reality rather than a bunch of fake news-consuming conspiracy theorists, but that sort of thing seems to be impossible to find online in this day and age. Every internet forum of a political nature that I have found so far is made up of people like me and conspiracy theorists. I imagine I'd have to go back to college to have an intelligent discussion with anyone I don't know personally.

 

It's punishing thoughts. Basically stating it's criminal to hate. It seems misapplied in all cases.

 

Blacks assaulting Asians, particularly elderly women.
Edit: if they charged hate crime, it would be an enhancement, and they can’t cut him loose on simple assault.

 

But that isn't a like situation. The men didn't chase him because was black. They chased him because his actions...walking on property and seemingly casing the area...raised suspicions.

This sutuation was not a correct use of hate crime. You use hate crime laws...ideally...when a person is targeted because of the color of ther skin. Hatred, right?

A person targeted because the men perceived his actions suspicious does not fit the definition of hate crime.

Otherwise....any black man that kills a white man for robbery, or out of anger, can be charged with an added on hate crime just because a different race then the murderer was killed.

 

The court disagrees.

 

Interesting take. You may be right that there is a leniency towards blacks committing crimes - compared to the past.

 

But not emotions. Hate is a feeling, remember. It's not a fixed state. It's the same as anger, or lust. Both of which also can be said to drive crimes, but are not relevant in sentencing. And what about when someone commits a crime in a state of happiness, or 'love'? It could be that they're acting out of love for some other thing, and believe the crime will fix it. How do you prosecute that? How do you sentence extra for that?

It's all utterly absurd, and very ****ing dangerous precedent.

 

I actually don't think so. They rightfully found him guilty of murder. But there was no evidence put forth showcasing the man's hatred of blacks.

 

"Might"?

 

And which particular news would you like to discuss? What is the source? The Guardian? How about CNN? Or BBC? Who is deciding (for you) what a conspiracy theorist is? Your own news sources? I'm also keen to know where the 'theory' is in this thread. This is a true event, as reported in your own news sources. The discussion is on the precedent set. That leaves plenty of room for everyone.

PS: I was annoyed by that title glitch too! Lesson .. don't type titles on a phone.