Man Charged with Hate Crime for Destroying Satanic Display

[KLB]

No. Economic motivation requires no hate. I worked a few robbery cases where the robber was literally apologizing throughout the robbery, they were motivated by desperation and not hate. Theft as a whole isn't hate driven, it's economic or thrill seeking driven. No hate required. It *could* be hate driven, if it's done as revenge or something, but not typically.

Being a drunk behind the wheel with poor judgement skills and lack of spacial awareness requires no hate, etc.

I mean, unless you expand the definition to the point all human action is hate driven, I suppose. "I hate starving to death, so I buy food" sort of thing, but I think that's stretching the point to absurdity.



While I generally disagree with the concept of 'hate crime', there's no violation of equal protection. Hate crimes in this context would apply to any religion if the motive was the religion. And, likely, lack of religion. I know the next argument is prosecutorial discretion, but that's not the law itself.

There are also a lot of sick, sadistic, psychotic people that hurt or kill people for reasons other than hating them.

 

[chipbennett]

While I generally disagree with the concept of 'hate crime', there's no violation of equal protection. Hate crimes in this context would apply to any religion if the motive was the religion. And, likely, lack of religion. I know the next argument is prosecutorial discretion, but that's not the law itself.

Actually, my next argument involves harm, not motive. If someone is murdered, they are equally dead - the harm is the same - regardless of the motive of the murderer. That is why "hate crimes" are unconstitutional: because they provide unequal protection to victims and would-be victims.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Actually, my next argument involves harm, not motive. If someone is murdered, they are equally dead - the harm is the same - regardless of the motive of the murderer. That is why "hate crimes" are unconstitutional: because they provide unequal protection to victims and would-be victims.

If you're argument is to be taken at face value, then battery statues are unconstitutional. Beating a child you have care of is a higher crime than a bar fight between adults resulting in the same injury. Both are beaten.

The dead person has no protection, they are dead. The idea behind hate crimes, originally, is the crime is used to intimidate or coerce a group of people beyond just the victim. If I kill you because your Christian, you are black in 'the wrong neighborhood', whatever, the intimidation factor/coercion factor for others to hide being Christian or to move out of the neighborhood makes more victims.

 

[chipbennett]

If you're argument is to be taken at face value, then battery statues are unconstitutional. Beating a child you have care of is a higher crime than a bar fight between adults resulting in the same injury. Both are beaten.

The harm to a child is not worse than the harm to an adult, considering the same amount of unlawful physical force used by the perpetrator? That doesn't seem to track.

The dead person has no protection, they are dead. The idea behind hate crimes, originally, is the crime is used to intimidate or coerce a group of people beyond just the victim. If I kill you because your Christian, you are black in 'the wrong neighborhood', whatever, the intimidation factor/coercion factor for others to hide being Christian or to move out of the neighborhood makes more victims.

And part of the idea behind punishments for crime convictions is to act as a deterrent to committing the crime in the first place: the underlying sentencing guidelines, felony escalators, sentence enhancements, etc.: all designed to discourage the commission of the crime. So, yes: would-be victims are treated unequally under the law due to so-called hate crimes.

And even still, I'm not sure I buy the intimidation/coercion angle as being unique to "hate" crimes. Gang bangers trying to keep rival gang bangers off of their street corner are acting out of a desire to intimidate/coerce a group of people beyond just the victim, too.

 

[KLB]

If you're argument is to be taken at face value, then battery statues are unconstitutional. Beating a child you have care of is a higher crime than a bar fight between adults resulting in the same injury. Both are beaten.

The dead person has no protection, they are dead. The idea behind hate crimes, originally, is the crime is used to intimidate or coerce a group of people beyond just the victim. If I kill you because your Christian, you are black in 'the wrong neighborhood', whatever, the intimidation factor/coercion factor for others to hide being Christian or to move out of the neighborhood makes more victims.

If that was the idea originally, it has no bearing on the use today. It is merely a punitive charge used when the victim checks a certain box.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

The harm to a child is not worse than the harm to an adult, considering the same amount of unlawful physical force used by the perpetrator? That doesn't seem to track.

Same physical force, same injury. If I slap you in a bar because you played Alvin and the Chipmunks sing Achy Breaky Heart on the jukebox, resulting in no injury, Class B misdemeanor. If I slap a 10 year old for the same reason for the same result, Felony 6. What doesn't track? Level of injury is a different enhancement.

And part of the idea behind punishments for crime convictions is to act as a deterrent to committing the crime in the first place: the underlying sentencing guidelines, felony escalators, sentence enhancements, etc.: all designed to discourage the commission of the crime. So, yes: would-be victims are treated unequally under the law due to so-called hate crimes.

And even still, I'm not sure I buy the intimidation/coercion angle as being unique to "hate" crimes. Gang bangers trying to keep rival gang bangers off of their street corner are acting out of a desire to intimidate/coerce a group of people beyond just the victim, too.

Being a gangbanger isn't a lawful activity or civil right like being *insert race/religion here*. Intimidation laws certainly apply to non-hate crime activities, though. Intimidation of a witness to a crime is a higher level charge than intimidation over who gets to use the good X-box controller. Which is why I'm not a huge fan of hate crime legislation, I think it can be addressed via intimidation/coercion laws more effectively and less controversially than the value assigned "hate crime" name.

The idea of hate crime isn't to stop the murder. Murder is to stop the murder. Hate crime enhancement is to stop the intimidation/coercion as mentioned, creating more victims.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

If that was the idea originally, it has no bearing on the use today. It is merely a punitive charge used when the victim checks a certain box.

I know the next argument is prosecutorial discretion, but that's not the law itself.

 

[KLB]

I know the next argument is prosecutorial discretion, but that's not the law itself.

I disagree. The explosion of hate crime laws have been about the punitive punishment of people committing crimes against a ever growing list of protected classes.

 

[blain]

INGO forum members should be a protected class.
This forum is a Safe Space, without the stuffed animals (except for those from a taxidermist).

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I disagree. The explosion of hate crime laws have been about the punitive punishment of people committing crimes against a ever growing list of protected classes.

Find "protected class" in hate crime legislation. This isn't affirmative action hires.

 

[Brad69]

IMO one should leave people’s beliefs up to them. You wanna worship a Goat more power to ya. If it doesn’t hurt anyone including animals go for it.

Whats that Mexican religion that worships a demon and sacrifices people?

 

[KLB]

Find "protected class" in hate crime legislation. This isn't affirmative action hires.

Hate Crimes

Crimes motivated by hate are not just attacks on individual innocent people – they are attacks on our communities and the entire State. It is the job of Attorney General Rob Bonta to see that the laws of the State are uniformly and adequately enforced. The California Department of Justice...

oag.ca.gov

A hate crime is a crime against a person, group, or property motivated by the victim's real or perceived protected social group. You may be the victim of a hate crime if you have been targeted because of your actual or perceived: (1) disability, (2) gender, (3) nationality, (4) race or ethnicity, (5) religion, (6) sexual orientation, and (7) association with a person or group with one or more of these actual or perceived characteristics. Hate crimes are serious crimes that may result in imprisonment or jail time.

Here's California's. It's right there in the first line.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Hate Crimes

Crimes motivated by hate are not just attacks on individual innocent people – they are attacks on our communities and the entire State. It is the job of Attorney General Rob Bonta to see that the laws of the State are uniformly and adequately enforced. The California Department of Justice...

oag.ca.gov

Here's California's. It's right there in the first line.

What's the protected class? Everyone has a gender, nationality, race, religion (or lack thereof), and sexual orientation. I guess you can hang your hat on disabled, though.

 

[Leo]

Whats that Mexican religion that worships a demon and sacrifices people?

Holy death.

 

[DadSmith]

IMO one should leave people’s beliefs up to them. You wanna worship a Goat more power to ya. If it doesn’t hurt anyone including animals go for it.

Whats that Mexican religion that worships a demon and sacrifices people?

Satan worship called by another name.