[quote]four60 wrote:
Well killing a Black male to impress KKK members is a crime based on race.[/quote]
Ah, but not necessarily hate or racial hatred.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]four60 wrote:
Well killing a Black male to impress KKK members is a crime based on race.[/quote]
Ah, but not necessarily hate or racial hatred.
[/quote]
If the soul purpose of the murder is to impress a Hate filled club then it fits. In order for it to work he needed to pic a member of society that the group has no love for.
Jews, blacks, Gays…Sharpton…
[quote]four60 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]four60 wrote:
Well killing a Black male to impress KKK members is a crime based on race.[/quote]
Ah, but not necessarily hate or racial hatred.
[/quote]
If the soul purpose of the murder is to impress a Hate filled club then it fits. In order for it to work he needed to pic a member of society that the group has no love for.
Jews, blacks, Gays…Sharpton…[/quote]
So it’s a hate crime even if the attacker was apathetic or possibly even felt sorry for the victim. This just proves my point about how dumb the law is.
I could also mention the same thing about gang initiations.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]four60 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]four60 wrote:
Well killing a Black male to impress KKK members is a crime based on race.[/quote]
Ah, but not necessarily hate or racial hatred.
[/quote]
If the soul purpose of the murder is to impress a Hate filled club then it fits. In order for it to work he needed to pic a member of society that the group has no love for.
Jews, blacks, Gays…Sharpton…[/quote]
So it’s a hate crime even if the attacker was apathetic or possibly even felt sorry for the victim. This just proves my point about how dumb the law is.
I could also mention the same thing about gang initiations.[/quote]
Oh I do not like how the Law Stands either. I’m just saying that yes it fits the Law. Would it not be Rape if the guy Raped a girl because he wanted to impress his friends…even if he felt bad during the rape?
Still Rape.
I just want the same justice if a loved one of mine is either of the above. The problem is I can’t blame Families for doing whatever they feel they must to get the attention needed.
The Federal Gov (on the other hand) should be about Justice not so much about public fear.
Its why we have such crazy gun laws now.
[quote]four60 wrote:
Sharpton…[/quote]
I hate Sharpton because he’s a con man who likes to incite violence.
In fact, he was primarily responsible for the only anti-Jewish pogrom (full-fledged attack on Jewish people, Nazi Brown Shirt style) that has ever happened in the USA.
How he is taken seriously by anyone is a shame.
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]four60 wrote:
Sharpton…[/quote]
I hate Sharpton because he’s a con man who likes to incite violence.
In fact, he was primarily responsible for the only anti-Jewish pogrom (full-fledged attack on Jewish people, Nazi Brown Shirt style) that has ever happened in the USA.
How he is taken seriously by anyone is a shame.[/quote]
He kept pushing thats how. I was in NY as a teenager during the Howard Beach thing and the Tawanay thing. The guy has a gift of gab and over the years has learned to play the game better than he use to.
I’m not a fan.
Its a simple mix. He use to just yell and scream. But he learned an old trick. If you take some truth and mix it with “fear” you can get away with alot without every touching “THE FACTS”.
[quote]four60 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]four60 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]four60 wrote:
Well killing a Black male to impress KKK members is a crime based on race.[/quote]
Ah, but not necessarily hate or racial hatred.
[/quote]
If the soul purpose of the murder is to impress a Hate filled club then it fits. In order for it to work he needed to pic a member of society that the group has no love for.
Jews, blacks, Gays…Sharpton…[/quote]
So it’s a hate crime even if the attacker was apathetic or possibly even felt sorry for the victim. This just proves my point about how dumb the law is.
I could also mention the same thing about gang initiations.[/quote]
Oh I do not like how the Law Stands either. I’m just saying that yes it fits the Law. Would it not be Rape if the guy Raped a girl because he wanted to impress his friends…even if he felt bad during the rape?
Still Rape.
I just want the same justice if a loved one of mine is either of the above. The problem is I can’t blame Families for doing whatever they feel they must to get the attention needed.
The Federal Gov (on the other hand) should be about Justice not so much about public fear.
Its why we have such crazy gun laws now.[/quote]
Rape is a defined exact factual physical act. Hate is not. Rape law doesn’t state something stupid like its only rape if the guy doing the raping enjoys it.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]four60 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]four60 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]four60 wrote:
Well killing a Black male to impress KKK members is a crime based on race.[/quote]
Ah, but not necessarily hate or racial hatred.
[/quote]
If the soul purpose of the murder is to impress a Hate filled club then it fits. In order for it to work he needed to pic a member of society that the group has no love for.
Jews, blacks, Gays…Sharpton…[/quote]
So it’s a hate crime even if the attacker was apathetic or possibly even felt sorry for the victim. This just proves my point about how dumb the law is.
I could also mention the same thing about gang initiations.[/quote]
Oh I do not like how the Law Stands either. I’m just saying that yes it fits the Law. Would it not be Rape if the guy Raped a girl because he wanted to impress his friends…even if he felt bad during the rape?
Still Rape.
I just want the same justice if a loved one of mine is either of the above. The problem is I can’t blame Families for doing whatever they feel they must to get the attention needed.
The Federal Gov (on the other hand) should be about Justice not so much about public fear.
Its why we have such crazy gun laws now.[/quote]
Rape is a defined exact factual physical act. Hate is not. Rape law doesn’t state something stupid like its only rape if the guy doing the raping enjoys it. [/quote]
And yet another reason why the laws are not fair for all. I have a family and if something happend I would like the best investigation. It should not matter if its two of the same people or not.
The Note in the OP crime should be investigated but it should be apart of a total investigation. But how can that happen if everyone is tripping over each other to ease public fear of a “hate crime”.
The family I’m sure wants justice not a quick fix.
[quote]four60 wrote:
The Note in the OP crime should be investigated but it should be apart of a total investigation. But how can that happen if everyone is tripping over each other to ease public fear of a “hate crime”.
The family I’m sure wants justice not a quick fix.[/quote]
This is just me being a lawyer (and a victim of several assaults because I am Jewish), but crimes like this are seldom so bold and when they are I tend to smell something.
I recall the shul (Jewish “church”) and shop that had nazi symbols all over them and were burned – turns out the shop next door (that was burned, too) was committing an insurance scam.
There was that black college professor who claimed a noose was put on her door – turned out she did it and was trying to get medical leave.
This is just so blatant (like the above), it looks like someone is throwing the police off the trail.
The times I’ve been attacked have been sudden with the perp running away and not exactly leaving a note saying they attacked me because I was Jewish — a “fucking Jooooo” catcall at most.
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
[quote]four60 wrote:
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
You know who I have a shit ton of respect for?
Bill Cosby.[/quote]
Its the Jello…isn’t it.[/quote]
You know it.[/quote]
I thought it was the poundcake.
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]four60 wrote:
The Note in the OP crime should be investigated but it should be apart of a total investigation. But how can that happen if everyone is tripping over each other to ease public fear of a “hate crime”.
The family I’m sure wants justice not a quick fix.[/quote]
This is just me being a lawyer (and a victim of several assaults because I am Jewish), but crimes like this are seldom so bold and when they are I tend to smell something.
I recall the shul (Jewish “church”) and shop that had nazi symbols all over them and were burned – turns out the shop next door (that was burned, too) was committing an insurance scam.
There was that black college professor who claimed a noose was put on her door – turned out she did it and was trying to get medical leave.
This is just so blatant (like the above), it looks like someone is throwing the police off the trail.
The times I’ve been attacked have been sudden with the perp running away and not exactly leaving a note saying they attacked me because I was Jewish — a “fucking Jooooo” catcall at most.[/quote]
Well, It could be a ploy for the police to get tunnel vision. But it could have happend as it was reported. Because of your history with racist you may be to close to be objective OR you are dead on. Time will tell.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]four60 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]four60 wrote:
^ I’m not sure how Rare it is, but I can understand how a family who feels they are not getting the investigative attention they need for a lost loved one can turn the focus to something that will and can receive Federal Law Enforcement action.
And this is one of the main reasons Hate Crime Laws bug me so. Race, sexual orientation, religious belief can play a part in a crime without it being the main reason the person was killed.
Not all racists are murderers.
Not all Murders involving Different races are race related.
Police are human they can fuck up like anyone else. I do wish victims families had better options other than federal involvement to make sure the police are following the same check list for all crimes that lead to fatalities.
[/quote]
It is a law about the mental intent of a person committing a crime which is completely unknowable.[/quote]
(Typing this on an iPad sucks, the quotes get mixed up)
Is it “Completely” unknowable or just hard to determine? I see the action of the law as being unfair. Does my loved one deserve less attention by law enforcement because all parties involved shared the same beliefs, color and sexual orientation?[/quote]
The only evidence you have is what the criminal says they were thinking. what actually went on is entirely unknowable. A white guy could kill a black guy and be a lifelong KKK member and claimed to have been racially motivated when he was really just trying to impress other KKK guys. Or many times a person may be mad and decide to hate someone first, then invent a reason after. It’s a dumb law. Period.[/quote]
Mens rea is required for many crimes in the US. Only a few are completely excluded from this determination…statutory rape for one.
[quote]groo wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]four60 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]four60 wrote:
^ I’m not sure how Rare it is, but I can understand how a family who feels they are not getting the investigative attention they need for a lost loved one can turn the focus to something that will and can receive Federal Law Enforcement action.
And this is one of the main reasons Hate Crime Laws bug me so. Race, sexual orientation, religious belief can play a part in a crime without it being the main reason the person was killed.
Not all racists are murderers.
Not all Murders involving Different races are race related.
Police are human they can fuck up like anyone else. I do wish victims families had better options other than federal involvement to make sure the police are following the same check list for all crimes that lead to fatalities.
[/quote]
It is a law about the mental intent of a person committing a crime which is completely unknowable.[/quote]
(Typing this on an iPad sucks, the quotes get mixed up)
Is it “Completely” unknowable or just hard to determine? I see the action of the law as being unfair. Does my loved one deserve less attention by law enforcement because all parties involved shared the same beliefs, color and sexual orientation?[/quote]
The only evidence you have is what the criminal says they were thinking. what actually went on is entirely unknowable. A white guy could kill a black guy and be a lifelong KKK member and claimed to have been racially motivated when he was really just trying to impress other KKK guys. Or many times a person may be mad and decide to hate someone first, then invent a reason after. It’s a dumb law. Period.[/quote]
Mens rea is required for many crimes in the US. Only a few are completely excluded from this determination…statutory rape for one.
[/quote]
Are you implying that killing someone for something not racially motivated is less of a “guilty mind”? Mens rea is unrelated to the specifics of the discussion.
What we are discussing isn’t about culpability, nor is it altering the definition of a crime Murder is murder. Intentionally killing is intentional killing. Culpability isn’t in question.
It is reasonable to assume a fully functional adult knows that shooting someone in the head in cold blood is murder. It is not reasonable to assume a specific adult did it for a specific reason isolated to a specific racial variable of the victim.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]four60 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]four60 wrote:
^ I’m not sure how Rare it is, but I can understand how a family who feels they are not getting the investigative attention they need for a lost loved one can turn the focus to something that will and can receive Federal Law Enforcement action.
And this is one of the main reasons Hate Crime Laws bug me so. Race, sexual orientation, religious belief can play a part in a crime without it being the main reason the person was killed.
Not all racists are murderers.
Not all Murders involving Different races are race related.
Police are human they can fuck up like anyone else. I do wish victims families had better options other than federal involvement to make sure the police are following the same check list for all crimes that lead to fatalities.
[/quote]
It is a law about the mental intent of a person committing a crime which is completely unknowable.[/quote]
(Typing this on an iPad sucks, the quotes get mixed up)
Is it “Completely” unknowable or just hard to determine? I see the action of the law as being unfair. Does my loved one deserve less attention by law enforcement because all parties involved shared the same beliefs, color and sexual orientation?[/quote]
The only evidence you have is what the criminal says they were thinking. what actually went on is entirely unknowable. A white guy could kill a black guy and be a lifelong KKK member and claimed to have been racially motivated when he was really just trying to impress other KKK guys. Or many times a person may be mad and decide to hate someone first, then invent a reason after. It’s a dumb law. Period.[/quote]
Mens rea is required for many crimes in the US. Only a few are completely excluded from this determination…statutory rape for one.
[/quote]
Are you implying that killing someone for something not racially motivated is less of a “guilty mind”? Mens rea is unrelated to the specifics of the discussion.[/quote]
No just suggesting that debating a criminal’s thoughts is common in US law and in this case one frame of mind has been legislated to have a harsher penalty than another. Now it might be fair to argue(and I believe this as well) that all murder is equally foul, however to say its not fair to debate or try to prove someone’s state of mind, that I disagree with. I think hate crime law should be gotten rid of, however I don’t see a problem with trying to prove someone’s state of mind to get a harsher penalty since thats current law.
[quote]groo wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]four60 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]four60 wrote:
^ I’m not sure how Rare it is, but I can understand how a family who feels they are not getting the investigative attention they need for a lost loved one can turn the focus to something that will and can receive Federal Law Enforcement action.
And this is one of the main reasons Hate Crime Laws bug me so. Race, sexual orientation, religious belief can play a part in a crime without it being the main reason the person was killed.
Not all racists are murderers.
Not all Murders involving Different races are race related.
Police are human they can fuck up like anyone else. I do wish victims families had better options other than federal involvement to make sure the police are following the same check list for all crimes that lead to fatalities.
[/quote]
It is a law about the mental intent of a person committing a crime which is completely unknowable.[/quote]
(Typing this on an iPad sucks, the quotes get mixed up)
Is it “Completely” unknowable or just hard to determine? I see the action of the law as being unfair. Does my loved one deserve less attention by law enforcement because all parties involved shared the same beliefs, color and sexual orientation?[/quote]
The only evidence you have is what the criminal says they were thinking. what actually went on is entirely unknowable. A white guy could kill a black guy and be a lifelong KKK member and claimed to have been racially motivated when he was really just trying to impress other KKK guys. Or many times a person may be mad and decide to hate someone first, then invent a reason after. It’s a dumb law. Period.[/quote]
Mens rea is required for many crimes in the US. Only a few are completely excluded from this determination…statutory rape for one.
[/quote]
Are you implying that killing someone for something not racially motivated is less of a “guilty mind”? Mens rea is unrelated to the specifics of the discussion.[/quote]
No just suggesting that debating a criminal’s thoughts is common in US law and in this case one frame of mind has been legislated to have a harsher penalty than another. Now it might be fair to argue(and I believe this as well) that all murder is equally foul, however to say its not fair to debate or try to prove someone’s state of mind, that I disagree with. I think hate crime law should be gotten rid of, however I don’t see a problem with trying to prove someone’s state of mind to get a harsher penalty.
[/quote]
Sorry, I was editing that post when you quoted me. See below:
What we are discussing isn’t about culpability, nor is it altering the definition of a crime Murder is murder. Intentionally killing is intentional killing. Culpability isn’t in question.
It is reasonable to assume a fully functional adult knows that shooting someone in the head in cold blood is murder. It is not reasonable to assume a specific adult did it for a specific reason isolated to a specific racial variable of the victim.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]four60 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]four60 wrote:
^ I’m not sure how Rare it is, but I can understand how a family who feels they are not getting the investigative attention they need for a lost loved one can turn the focus to something that will and can receive Federal Law Enforcement action.
And this is one of the main reasons Hate Crime Laws bug me so. Race, sexual orientation, religious belief can play a part in a crime without it being the main reason the person was killed.
Not all racists are murderers.
Not all Murders involving Different races are race related.
Police are human they can fuck up like anyone else. I do wish victims families had better options other than federal involvement to make sure the police are following the same check list for all crimes that lead to fatalities.
[/quote]
It is a law about the mental intent of a person committing a crime which is completely unknowable.[/quote]
(Typing this on an iPad sucks, the quotes get mixed up)
Is it “Completely” unknowable or just hard to determine? I see the action of the law as being unfair. Does my loved one deserve less attention by law enforcement because all parties involved shared the same beliefs, color and sexual orientation?[/quote]
The only evidence you have is what the criminal says they were thinking. what actually went on is entirely unknowable. A white guy could kill a black guy and be a lifelong KKK member and claimed to have been racially motivated when he was really just trying to impress other KKK guys. Or many times a person may be mad and decide to hate someone first, then invent a reason after. It’s a dumb law. Period.[/quote]
Mens rea is required for many crimes in the US. Only a few are completely excluded from this determination…statutory rape for one.
[/quote]
Are you implying that killing someone for something not racially motivated is less of a “guilty mind”? Mens rea is unrelated to the specifics of the discussion.[/quote]
No just suggesting that debating a criminal’s thoughts is common in US law and in this case one frame of mind has been legislated to have a harsher penalty than another. Now it might be fair to argue(and I believe this as well) that all murder is equally foul, however to say its not fair to debate or try to prove someone’s state of mind, that I disagree with. I think hate crime law should be gotten rid of, however I don’t see a problem with trying to prove someone’s state of mind to get a harsher penalty.
[/quote]
Sorry, I was editing that post when you quoted me. See below:
What we are discussing isn’t about culpability, nor is it altering the definition of a crime Murder is murder. Intentionally killing is intentional killing. Culpability isn’t in question.
It is reasonable to assume a fully functional adult knows that shooting someone in the head in cold blood is murder. It is not reasonable to assume a specific adult did it for a specific reason isolated to a specific racial variable of the victim.[/quote]
Pretty much I am in agreement with you I think all punishment for cold blooded murder should be harsh. I just would go for the harsher punishment and try to prove the mental state if it were possible as it is now.
[quote]groo wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]four60 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]four60 wrote:
^ I’m not sure how Rare it is, but I can understand how a family who feels they are not getting the investigative attention they need for a lost loved one can turn the focus to something that will and can receive Federal Law Enforcement action.
And this is one of the main reasons Hate Crime Laws bug me so. Race, sexual orientation, religious belief can play a part in a crime without it being the main reason the person was killed.
Not all racists are murderers.
Not all Murders involving Different races are race related.
Police are human they can fuck up like anyone else. I do wish victims families had better options other than federal involvement to make sure the police are following the same check list for all crimes that lead to fatalities.
[/quote]
It is a law about the mental intent of a person committing a crime which is completely unknowable.[/quote]
(Typing this on an iPad sucks, the quotes get mixed up)
Is it “Completely” unknowable or just hard to determine? I see the action of the law as being unfair. Does my loved one deserve less attention by law enforcement because all parties involved shared the same beliefs, color and sexual orientation?[/quote]
The only evidence you have is what the criminal says they were thinking. what actually went on is entirely unknowable. A white guy could kill a black guy and be a lifelong KKK member and claimed to have been racially motivated when he was really just trying to impress other KKK guys. Or many times a person may be mad and decide to hate someone first, then invent a reason after. It’s a dumb law. Period.[/quote]
Mens rea is required for many crimes in the US. Only a few are completely excluded from this determination…statutory rape for one.
[/quote]
Are you implying that killing someone for something not racially motivated is less of a “guilty mind”? Mens rea is unrelated to the specifics of the discussion.[/quote]
No just suggesting that debating a criminal’s thoughts is common in US law and in this case one frame of mind has been legislated to have a harsher penalty than another. Now it might be fair to argue(and I believe this as well) that all murder is equally foul, however to say its not fair to debate or try to prove someone’s state of mind, that I disagree with. I think hate crime law should be gotten rid of, however I don’t see a problem with trying to prove someone’s state of mind to get a harsher penalty.
[/quote]
Sorry, I was editing that post when you quoted me. See below:
What we are discussing isn’t about culpability, nor is it altering the definition of a crime Murder is murder. Intentionally killing is intentional killing. Culpability isn’t in question.
It is reasonable to assume a fully functional adult knows that shooting someone in the head in cold blood is murder. It is not reasonable to assume a specific adult did it for a specific reason isolated to a specific racial variable of the victim.[/quote]
Pretty much I am in agreement with you I think all punishment for cold blooded murder should be harsh. I just would go for the harsher punishment and try to prove the mental state if it were possible as it is now.
[/quote]
The question I always find myself asking in reference to hate crime law is, “if increased penalties for racial related crimes is a deterrent for such crime, why not apply the stricter penalties for all similar crime regardless of race and prevent all versions of the crime?”
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]four60 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]four60 wrote:
^ I’m not sure how Rare it is, but I can understand how a family who feels they are not getting the investigative attention they need for a lost loved one can turn the focus to something that will and can receive Federal Law Enforcement action.
And this is one of the main reasons Hate Crime Laws bug me so. Race, sexual orientation, religious belief can play a part in a crime without it being the main reason the person was killed.
Not all racists are murderers.
Not all Murders involving Different races are race related.
Police are human they can fuck up like anyone else. I do wish victims families had better options other than federal involvement to make sure the police are following the same check list for all crimes that lead to fatalities.
[/quote]
It is a law about the mental intent of a person committing a crime which is completely unknowable.[/quote]
(Typing this on an iPad sucks, the quotes get mixed up)
Is it “Completely” unknowable or just hard to determine? I see the action of the law as being unfair. Does my loved one deserve less attention by law enforcement because all parties involved shared the same beliefs, color and sexual orientation?[/quote]
The only evidence you have is what the criminal says they were thinking. what actually went on is entirely unknowable. A white guy could kill a black guy and be a lifelong KKK member and claimed to have been racially motivated when he was really just trying to impress other KKK guys. Or many times a person may be mad and decide to hate someone first, then invent a reason after. It’s a dumb law. Period.[/quote]
Mens rea is required for many crimes in the US. Only a few are completely excluded from this determination…statutory rape for one.
[/quote]
Are you implying that killing someone for something not racially motivated is less of a “guilty mind”? Mens rea is unrelated to the specifics of the discussion.[/quote]
No just suggesting that debating a criminal’s thoughts is common in US law and in this case one frame of mind has been legislated to have a harsher penalty than another. Now it might be fair to argue(and I believe this as well) that all murder is equally foul, however to say its not fair to debate or try to prove someone’s state of mind, that I disagree with. I think hate crime law should be gotten rid of, however I don’t see a problem with trying to prove someone’s state of mind to get a harsher penalty.
[/quote]
Sorry, I was editing that post when you quoted me. See below:
What we are discussing isn’t about culpability, nor is it altering the definition of a crime Murder is murder. Intentionally killing is intentional killing. Culpability isn’t in question.
It is reasonable to assume a fully functional adult knows that shooting someone in the head in cold blood is murder. It is not reasonable to assume a specific adult did it for a specific reason isolated to a specific racial variable of the victim.[/quote]
Pretty much I am in agreement with you I think all punishment for cold blooded murder should be harsh. I just would go for the harsher punishment and try to prove the mental state if it were possible as it is now.
[/quote]
The question I always find myself asking in reference to hate crime law is, “if increased penalties for racial related crimes is a deterrent for such crime, why not apply the stricter penalties for all similar crime regardless of race and prevent all versions of the crime?” [/quote]
That’s wishful thinking. We’d love to prevent crime through stricter laws, but I doubt it would deter a jobless man with nowhere else to turn to and with the means to, to pick pockets and rob small grocery stores.
Some criminals aren’t cold-blooded. It’s not popular to think that yes, some criminals can even be “good hearted”, just really stuck between a rock and a hard place with their governments doing little to help them put bread on the table. And I agree with at least trying to establish the frame of mind a suspect is in, that way, a more suitable punishment can be handed down.
[quote]DarkNinjaa wrote:
A few people in other blogs have even suggested that is not a hate crime. They said if she had been killed a few months after 9/11 then it would have been a hate crime. Can you comprehend this kind of thinking?? Fucking Unbelievable. Some are even putting the blame on her husband or a neighbour. No, there’s no hate crime in America. We are all seeing things.
Shake my fucking head
[/quote]
When all you have is a hammer, everything is a nail.
The police are investigating all leads and I heard on the radio this morning that they have leads that indicate that it wasn’t a hate crime at all.
There was a great interview with one of the leaders of the local Muslim community here saying that they are working with the police and they made the comment that they haven’t had this type of crime happen to them yet. So, why would someone single out a mother, in her home, and beat her to death? If this was a hate crime wouldn’t you pick someone who was walking around in traditional attire or on their way to worship? Why would you break into this particular lady’s home? It just doesn’t make sense when you really think about the details of the crime.
We have a LOT of Muslims here and a LOT of them wear their traditional garments. We have a lot not just from the Middle East but also from northern Africa. They walk around all day, go to school, go to the gym, shop, etc wearing this and nobody attacks any of them. But they pick out this mother out of all of the other people in the community, all the other easy targets, all the other people just walking around, and leave a note? Why would you risk being caught like that if you just wanted to kill a Muslim? I don’t think you would.
james