"Hate Crime", and it's terrible implications

So the Rubicon has been crossed.

In finding the perps in the Ahmaud Abery case guilty of a 'hate crime', we've entered incredibly dangerous new territory. This seems to have been a decision borne of either complete disregard for such a precedent's potential (or rather, certain) abuse, or childlike impulsivity.

Now that the Law has declared it can simply decide what you hate, and what things are acceptable to hate on any given day, the path to fascism is smoothed nicely. Anything you do or say can be officially declared 'hate', and you will have no redress.

On the road to your fascism, 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), you'll know that not only are you heading for something awful, but that you're being taken there by racists.

Thoughts?

 

related thoughts here: Man unfairly sentenced to life in prison for "role" in death

You want my opinion? When police and private individuals can't even follow someone who they believe to be a suspicious person without facing the legal risk of life in prison, I think that is only going to contribute more towards the flight out of crime-ridden areas and result in more gated private communities.

Seems like society is being snowflakes and flipping out about any race issues. See following stories for examples
Entire Police Department Fired After Racist Joke Text Shared
Football Coach Guilted into Resigning Because He Accidentally Said the N-word
Professor fired because he mixed up names of 2 black students
School superintendent placed on leave
Soccer players punished for making ridiculous "racist" internet posts, UK

 

Let's see what happens if a bunch of black guys in a pickup truck chase a white jogger, hunt him down and shoot him because he's white.

If they charge them with a hate crime then we'll know.

 

The anticipated and utterly predictable "only whites are racist". What's your purpose?

Are you actually okay with this flirtation with fascism?

 

Every assault of blacks and Asian women is “Considered to be a hate crime”.. but is never charged, just criminal assault and they are out by sundown.
Only whites can hate.
All they are is “vote for me” politically oriented increases on charges plea bargained away. If you kill someone, what does hate have to do with it?

 

It's more complex than just them "hunting" him down. They had not exactly tried to arrest him, and guns were only pointed at him when he ran too close to them, in a way they considered potentially threatening to their situation. (It can be argued the guns were only used to try to keep him away from them, and keep some distance between them, even though they were the ones that were following)
He was only shot after he had run at and tried to yank the shotgun out of one of their hands.

 

And entirely irrelevant. Walking past an elderly Asian person and punching them in the back of the head is another example, but of course that isn't "hate". The particulars aren't what matters, it's the fact that the decision on whether it's hate, is in the hands of dangerous, fascistic, racists.

 

Motive is and always has been a big part of defening, prosecuting and sentencing crime.

 

In other words you concede that this was largely and mainly about "racism".

Even though they may not have "murdered" the victim, their racism did, so life in prison with all of them!

 

But let's see if your assertion is correct first. Then we'll have a look at it.

You said: "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)"

A quick search and here are some examples.

https://www.wafb.com/story/10000667/two-men-arrested-on-attempted-murder-and-hate-crime-charges/




Some more examples.






I'm sure you can find plenty more on the net. Have a great day.

 

The accessory to the crime whom you seem so determined to exonerate only got 35 years.

 

Sorry, can you rephrase this. I don't quite understand. Who is never charged?

 

Legal 'motive' is quite different, and I'm sure you know that. It refers to personal links. In the case of random violent crime, no motive can be known or declared, because there is no personal link. Unless the perp openly declares some motivation, nothing can be surmised. To claim a known motive (and a very dodgy one at that, since it's a freaking emotion) without demonstrable evidence, is why this is borderline fascism.

 

I thought the sentencing was unduly harsh. But that's America for you.

As I said, at danger of repeating myself. As I said again, let's see what happens if a group of blacks do exactly the same thing to a white man jogging. And then we'll see the charges & sentencing.

 

In this case, it has to do with mob justice, the media fanning the flames (reporting a biased and distorted version of the story), and "racism".

If the victim had been white, he most likely would have never been charged and the media would never have picked up on the story. There would never have been federal charges either.
It is true the state of Georgia is notorious for harsh sentences, but it likely would have been far far less. A big part of why the jury chose to convict (and likely why the judge imposed such a harsh sentence) was they were perceived to be racist.

 

So in each of these cases, the perps declared themselves (assuming they actually said those things).

Even still, they should not have been charged with anything other than assault. The stuff a lunatic shouts while engaging in their violence, is irrelevant to the actuality of that violence. The 'hate' is manifest in their propensity for random violence .. but then hate is the wrong word. Sociopathy, or psychopathy perhaps, but not hate. "Hate" is childish and silly, and completely open to interpretation.

 

That's where it starts. Where it ends is very ****ing dark.

 

This is not entirely true.
He was sentenced to life in prison, with possibility of parole (in Georgia the law says he has to serve at least 30 years before he becomes eligible for parole).
Then separately, he was just sentenced today in a federal court to 35 years, for the same crime.

The fact that they charged and tried him separately in federal court (even though these sort of crimes are normally only a state jurisdiction issue) shows how much they wanted to go after him, and how much of an atmosphere of vengeance there was.

 

In what way was this crime "random" and on what basis can you declare that "no motive can be known" about this particular crime? I disagree that a perp has to openly declare motive for it to be established on the basis of available evidence.

 

Well, you can speculate and hope all you like. We will only know if there is a comparable case. It doesn't seem to happen very often though, that a truckload of black guys target and chase a white jogger through suburbs and then shoot him.

 

You are punishing him based on an alleged motive that you do not even have solid evidence is true.

 

I think you have the makings of a reasonable perspective and argument.

However, if the 'hate additive' is applied equally then it's a less strong argument. As @Durandal said motivation is always a factor in prosecution. This simply formalizes and categorizes a particular type of motivation.

 

In other words you believe they should be very harshly punished because, all three of them, "together", wanted to hunt down a black person because he was black and for not a very good reason, and you view the victim's death as a "natural" offshoot of that, so therefore they are entirely responsible. (And you lump all three of their individual actions together as one, which is another issue)

 

There is no personal link between the perp and the victim. It was entirely a random, opportunistic crime.

It's not possible to know which emotions passed through the soul of the perp, in the moment of violence. It's a grotesque overreach to assign motive in those circumstances, and thus doing so is a function of ideology, not justice. Justice is bare bones pragmatics, remember. It's a function, not a feeling.

 

But some variant of 'hate' is always present in violence. It's an absurdity to make it a discrete driver, for that reason alone. More importantly, 'hate' is so wide open to interpretation. It's a passing emotion, and can be present one second but not the next. It should never be accepted into law as a stand alone and provable motive. Yet it has ...