Federal hate crime charges filed in Virginia rally death

a reply to: pavil

Well, he was marching with the Lowes contingent of the Aryan bozohood that day so I'm guessing premeditation is a slam dunk.

While this toolbag should face maximum penalty for each charge against him, the hate crime statute is absolutely moronic.

a reply to: JinMI

what violent crime isnt a hate crime?

a reply to: toysforadults

Exactly.

Also, how do you apply the statute without political motivations?

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Kharron

What is the value in allowing him to live? He forfetted his rights when he committed this act.

Just one of my things in life... do no harm. Killing is harm. I would rather imprison him for life, but I see that is for another thread.

I do hope he's found guilty on all counts.

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: JinMI

what violent crime isnt a hate crime?

Exactly, almost every crime is a crime of emotion.

That's why the law calls it a Bias-Motivated Crime, and we call it a Hate Crime.

a reply to: Kharron

I think if you were to ask what would be more harmful given the options, many would choose death over life in a cage.

Then there is the ripple effect. The cost of incarceration, future crimes they may commit while locked up etc etc.

Another interesting topic indeed.

Fair game. Get him! Assuming all those violent Antifa / BLM / etc militant SJW's (countless incidents across 2016-2017 alone) will get the same thing and clean this society up.

Not that I actually think such laws are admirable. But they need to cut every which wayif we're going to run that game in any way. Unlike how we see Twitter, Facebook etc nail people in only one direction (the one Critical Race Theory points its guns at).

a reply to: Kharron
My Webster's defines bias as prejudice. Prejudice is defined as an opinion, often unfavorable, formed without adequate reasons. Therefore bias and prejudice are thoughts, emotions. I can be prejudiced on any issue. I may harbor bias against any group or individual but if I do not take some action that causes that group or individual harm, I am not guilty of a crime---yet.

How you prosecute an opinion? You really want the Thought Police to begin regular patrols?

originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: Kharron
My Webster's defines bias as prejudice. Prejudice is defined as an opinion, often unfavorable, formed without adequate reasons. Therefore bias and prejudice are thoughts, emotions. I can be prejudiced on any issue. I may harbor bias against any group or individual but if I do not take some action that causes that group or individual harm, I am not guilty of a crime---yet.

How you prosecute an opinion? You really want the Thought Police to begin regular patrols?

I never made such claim, diggin, I agree with you. Everyone is entitled to opinions and thoughts and feelings, whatever they may be. And we can express them all, even to authority.

But this guy ran people over with a physical vehicle, it's not a thought crime.

Or if you're talking about it actually being called a hate crime... yeah I don't like the term either. It's simplified for the public, like the Higgs boson became The God Particle and every scientist hates the term.

a reply to: Kharron

So he hated some people and their ideology BS, and he hurt a bunch pf people.

So he deserves "hate crime" laws, right?

We'll just skip entirely past the reality that pretty much any time someone goes out and hurts someone its because they hate them....

Why should he get "hate crime" just because of the severity of what went down?

Or, lets just go with he deserves it period, then why wouldnt those countless BLM/ BAMN / Antifa / SJWhatever violent assailants not also deserve it just the same?

Or else dude, who already has a freaking MURDER wrap, right, if we're going to go by severity then hit him instead with a terrorism + murder wrap?

After all, those BLM etc hate crimes were politically motivated, thus classifying them as terrorism proper.

All I'm screaming is there should be uniformity how we're going to deal with these, pragmatism. It shouldnt be only white people getting charged / people that hate white people (including white people SJW's) not getting charged.

originally posted by: Kharron

originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: Kharron
My Webster's defines bias as prejudice. Prejudice is defined as an opinion, often unfavorable, formed without adequate reasons. Therefore bias and prejudice are thoughts, emotions. I can be prejudiced on any issue. I may harbor bias against any group or individual but if I do not take some action that causes that group or individual harm, I am not guilty of a crime---yet.

How you prosecute an opinion? You really want the Thought Police to begin regular patrols?

I never made such claim, diggin, I agree with you. Everyone is entitled to opinions and thoughts and feelings, whatever they may be. And we can express them all, even to authority.

But this guy ran people over with a physical vehicle, it's not a thought crime.
Or if you're talking about it actually being called a hate crime... yeah I don't like the term either. It's simplified for the public, like the Higgs boson became The God Particle and every scientist hates the term.

And that action should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. If found guilty he should be permanently removed from society. I don't give a rip why he did what he did. It certainly isn't "simplified" for the public, it is called hate crime to appeal to the emotions. It has worked. Emotions have been criminalized. Think on that.

I don't hate anyone. It's a useless burden to carry. I do however despite certain individuals and even some groups and want nothing at all to do with them. I'm very prejudiced against people who walk out a public restroom without washing their hands. Turns my stomach when I see it happen. I hold convicted sex offenders against children in very low regard and would never hire one to work for me. But the real scum at the bottom of the swamp in estimation are those people who advocate violence to advance their agenda.

This Hate Crime legislation is part of the Democrat agenda. I find it highly ironic that they may shortly be reaping the rewards of being on the other side of the table. It was begun by LBJ and his Great Society brothers and enlarged and strengthened by BHO. All the crimes covered by the hate crime legislation are already crimes with what society has deemed just punishment for that action.

I can easily foresee the day that Mr. Nolan could be charged for a hate crime under these very statutes. He has written some very provocative words. What happens if one of his 500 or so followers decides to carry out his dream and plants a bomb in a cabinet official's home or car? He has declared his hate already as have many others. Can you see where this is going....

This bit here is interesting...

"one count of racially motivated violent interference with a federally protected activity."

That's a mighty big can of worms they're opening, but I don't see how that applies here considering the rally was declared an unlawful gathering and shut down.