Have we actually seen anything on that being a proper hate crime? As far as I can tell, the dude may have been so narcissistic that he just barreled through people because they were in his way, and he didn't give a shit because he had some SovCit idea about being a free traveler and refusing to succumb to boat piracy.
He even apparently tried to hide in a white dude's house.
He might have said some racist shit online, but that doesn't really tell us that this was a reprisal attack for Rittenhouse being freed.
Enough evidence to demonstrate that the intent was malicious and based off of the prejudices of the individual involved for the sake of those prejudices. Confessions are perfect, but demonstrating intent is hard.
What is the intent of the criminals actions at the time of his actions? Is the crime entirely based off of his intentions?
Say a Latino was robbing a Korean, and the Latino shot him as they were struggling over the gun. It's still a murder (though maybe not a pre-meditated one), but it's not clearly a hate crime. On the other hand, if the Latino is walking away with the stolen goods, turns around, shoots him in the head, and yells "fucking chink!" after killing him? That's a hate crime. It might not be a confession, but there's reasonable evidence to suggest that criminal has a "depravity of mind" that warrants additional punishment.
I can understand why people claim hate crimes shouldn't be separate crimes, or just reduced as aggravating factors, but I do think it speaks to the depravity of mind that a criminal has. When you are committing to a violent felony due to bigotry, rather than due to your normal criminal objectives (money, status, revenge, etc), then I think there should be additional punishments. We can't tolerate a criminal society, but we must be actively intolerant of a society where the criminals are rationalizing criminality based on arbitrary ideological zealotry.
My point is that you can't read mind, either this is a hate crime or hate crimes need to be removed entirely.
Hence your question is wrong, it should not be "was the Waukesha massacre a hate crime" but rather a statement about hate crimes being different from crime is stupid - this being an entirely different thing not specifically related to the Waukesha massacre as, if anything, would point to the need of hate crime as the dude was a monster.
I do agree that hate crime is stupid in general and it is mostly used by leftists for political gain. I have no problem with removing hate crime as a category.
I don't know if it should be removed as a category, but even if it was I'm not going to complain because it should still be counted as an aggravating factor.
However, I don't think we can just say "well we can't read minds", we can still read intent.
but I do think it speaks to the depravity of mind that a criminal has
Because as we know, normal criminals aren't depraved nor filled with all sorts of intolerable traits. Bigots are special level evil that rise about all others.
I sure do like the idea of somebody so cold and unfeeling that murder "just cuz" for things like money or power is somehow less abhorrent for society to allow than someone who is doing it for ideological reasons (i.e. believing that are improving things by doing so through an extremely warped lens).
If you want to make an argument that hate crime laws are a good thing, you'll need more than completely arbitrary "I think this one is worse because I said its more evilz!"
You don't seem to understand that depravity of mind is already something that is taken into account in sentencing.
And yes, I do think such actions are particularly abhorrent. If you have money and status, you know to protect your shit. You get security. You buy guns. You avoid showing it off, but you can invest in a defensive structure.
Someone who's attacking you based on totally ideological reasons means they can attack anyone who is their perceived enemy at any time, for any reason. It's not possible to mitigate that risk. Take Lee Rigby for example. He was running. That's it. He had no valuables. He was not a valuable target to anyone except for the Islamists that ran him over with a car, then chopped him to pieces with a clever, and decapitated him; showing his severed head to a crowd. It was not the attack of a crazy hobo with a stick who attacks people at random, it was a planned, dedicated attack based off of an ideological declaration of war.
Worse, submitting to the criminal might actually be more dangerous. Because of the ideological nature of the attack, they are not going to simply steal your shit. They are looking to maximize the damage done to you simply because they are hunting you specifically without having even done anything to warrant that level of aggression, or give you warning that such aggression is possible. Consider the white man who was tortured by four black attackers. The purpose was to torture. Most of the time you could feign compliance and then attempt to escape, even if they keep your belongings; but when you are the primary target already, there's no reason not to fight to the death from the very beginning of the attack. But there's no way you can know this if the rationale of the attack against you is purely within the brain of the attacker based on efforts to promote an ideology.
I do think it speaks to the depravity of mind that a criminal has. When you are committing to a violent felony due to bigotry, rather than due to your normal criminal objectives (money, status, revenge, etc), then I think there should be additional punishments. We can't tolerate a criminal society, but we must be actively intolerant of a society where the criminals are rationalizing criminality based on arbitrary ideological zealotry.
Strongly disagree with everything here, on every level. Wouldn't even know where to start. (Ok I do agree with "We can't tolerate a criminal society".)
I saw 2 or 3 posts. He's got less of an anti-white history than most New York Times journalists. What, if any, evidence do we have on why he launched the attack? I'm not even sure the prosecution knows.
The real question is who give a shit? Hate crimes are fake and gay. Murder is murder. Running over one person on purpose should get you the rope, let alone a dozen.
Have we actually seen anything on that being a proper hate crime? As far as I can tell, the dude may have been so narcissistic that he just barreled through people because they were in his way, and he didn't give a shit because he had some SovCit idea about being a free traveler and refusing to succumb to boat piracy.
He even apparently tried to hide in a white dude's house.
He might have said some racist shit online, but that doesn't really tell us that this was a reprisal attack for Rittenhouse being freed.
How would you prove anything being a hate crime?
This was a guy who hates white people, black supremacists that killed a bunch of white people.
What standard do you need to call it a hate crime? A confession?
Enough evidence to demonstrate that the intent was malicious and based off of the prejudices of the individual involved for the sake of those prejudices. Confessions are perfect, but demonstrating intent is hard.
What is the intent of the criminals actions at the time of his actions? Is the crime entirely based off of his intentions?
Say a Latino was robbing a Korean, and the Latino shot him as they were struggling over the gun. It's still a murder (though maybe not a pre-meditated one), but it's not clearly a hate crime. On the other hand, if the Latino is walking away with the stolen goods, turns around, shoots him in the head, and yells "fucking chink!" after killing him? That's a hate crime. It might not be a confession, but there's reasonable evidence to suggest that criminal has a "depravity of mind" that warrants additional punishment.
I can understand why people claim hate crimes shouldn't be separate crimes, or just reduced as aggravating factors, but I do think it speaks to the depravity of mind that a criminal has. When you are committing to a violent felony due to bigotry, rather than due to your normal criminal objectives (money, status, revenge, etc), then I think there should be additional punishments. We can't tolerate a criminal society, but we must be actively intolerant of a society where the criminals are rationalizing criminality based on arbitrary ideological zealotry.
My point is that you can't read mind, either this is a hate crime or hate crimes need to be removed entirely.
Hence your question is wrong, it should not be "was the Waukesha massacre a hate crime" but rather a statement about hate crimes being different from crime is stupid - this being an entirely different thing not specifically related to the Waukesha massacre as, if anything, would point to the need of hate crime as the dude was a monster.
I do agree that hate crime is stupid in general and it is mostly used by leftists for political gain. I have no problem with removing hate crime as a category.
I don't know if it should be removed as a category, but even if it was I'm not going to complain because it should still be counted as an aggravating factor.
However, I don't think we can just say "well we can't read minds", we can still read intent.
Because as we know, normal criminals aren't depraved nor filled with all sorts of intolerable traits. Bigots are special level evil that rise about all others.
I sure do like the idea of somebody so cold and unfeeling that murder "just cuz" for things like money or power is somehow less abhorrent for society to allow than someone who is doing it for ideological reasons (i.e. believing that are improving things by doing so through an extremely warped lens).
If you want to make an argument that hate crime laws are a good thing, you'll need more than completely arbitrary "I think this one is worse because I said its more evilz!"
You don't seem to understand that depravity of mind is already something that is taken into account in sentencing.
And yes, I do think such actions are particularly abhorrent. If you have money and status, you know to protect your shit. You get security. You buy guns. You avoid showing it off, but you can invest in a defensive structure.
Someone who's attacking you based on totally ideological reasons means they can attack anyone who is their perceived enemy at any time, for any reason. It's not possible to mitigate that risk. Take Lee Rigby for example. He was running. That's it. He had no valuables. He was not a valuable target to anyone except for the Islamists that ran him over with a car, then chopped him to pieces with a clever, and decapitated him; showing his severed head to a crowd. It was not the attack of a crazy hobo with a stick who attacks people at random, it was a planned, dedicated attack based off of an ideological declaration of war.
Worse, submitting to the criminal might actually be more dangerous. Because of the ideological nature of the attack, they are not going to simply steal your shit. They are looking to maximize the damage done to you simply because they are hunting you specifically without having even done anything to warrant that level of aggression, or give you warning that such aggression is possible. Consider the white man who was tortured by four black attackers. The purpose was to torture. Most of the time you could feign compliance and then attempt to escape, even if they keep your belongings; but when you are the primary target already, there's no reason not to fight to the death from the very beginning of the attack. But there's no way you can know this if the rationale of the attack against you is purely within the brain of the attacker based on efforts to promote an ideology.
Strongly disagree with everything here, on every level. Wouldn't even know where to start. (Ok I do agree with "We can't tolerate a criminal society".)
Let's try this: why should we not try to disincentivize a criminal's rationalization via ideological zealotry with additional sanctions?
Yes he has a long history of posting explicitly anti-white and "blacks are the real Jews" stuff
I saw 2 or 3 posts. He's got less of an anti-white history than most New York Times journalists. What, if any, evidence do we have on why he launched the attack? I'm not even sure the prosecution knows.
So why aren’t those journalists being brought up on hate crimes? Oh right, because they didn’t drive through a parade of white people.
Your reasoning is just retarded sometimes, Gitz.
At least you were smart enough to mostly steer clear of the forum when your favorite protected class was having one of its worst months ever.
Well, the New York Times drivers didn't drive through anyone, they're just racist trash. There has to be an actual crime.
Gamers aren't a protected class.
The real question is who give a shit? Hate crimes are fake and gay. Murder is murder. Running over one person on purpose should get you the rope, let alone a dozen.
I was just curious if there was anything to do with the idea that this was a reprisal attack for the Kyle Rittenhouse verdict.