I'm no legal historian, but I wager that once we opened the precedent with "crimes of passion" as a legal defense that it was all downhill from there. Because its a real quick turnaround from "charges lowered because of intent" to increasing them too.
Which never made sense to me because someone who commits a crime of passion is just as likely, maybe more likely to reoffend because they lack self-control. If it's not the same crime it will be something else.
A common exception is the "guy catching his wife in bed with another man". In that case you can argue that any reasonable person would react the same way, but that's just a legal hack because we think it was justified then.
I mean, I've never heard it not used in the scenario you just described. Where a guy is in a situation where his emotions can overload so suddenly from such a level of disrespect that his actions are not indicative of his overall normal nature.
Which I don't disagree with either. There are some situations where reasonable men can be expected to act unreasonable and their actions therein shouldn't be held as heavy. Everybody's favorite dad Gary Plauche committed clear murder, but we can all see the "passion" that lead to it and don't want him to be truly punished for it. I'd even say the legal system was broken if it tried to be so rigid.
But the problem with laws is always that the moment you make them, they will be abused to the worst ways by the worst people. Suddenly "a man committing violence after being cheated on" is on equal legal footing as "he heard the word nigger, he couldn't stop himself."
Again if we're arguing that it's a situation where reasonable men can be expected to act unreasonable (why Gary why), then I agree it's justifiable but that's a legal hack because they don't want to simply argue it was justifiable. There may or may not be intent and I don't consider it a crime of passion. (he couldn't help himself in the moment)
"he heard the word nigger, he couldn't stop himself."
Exactly. I didn't want to bother searching for examples where the defense has been used, but yeah that's about what I was thinking. I would gladly put such an animal down before executing a man who methodically planned out a murder. The latter case may or may not have mitigating circumstances. The former is an animal that shouldn't live among humans.
The difference with Gary is that the state was abdicating its duty by not quickly executing a child molester. The crime was objectively egregious enough to justify vigilante justice. The state has no duty to execute your wife because she cheated on you or to execute a stranger because he cut you off on the road.
The difference with Gary is that the state was abdicating its duty by not quickly executing a child molester
He was literally in cuffs getting off the plane to be taken to trial. Everyone has a right to trial to prove their guilt, even if its obvious and egregious of that guilt. Because as I said:
the problem with laws is always that the moment you make them, they will be abused to the worst ways by the worst people.
I don't care about protecting pedos or criminal. Heck I think druggies should be executed en masse. But I know the moment we cut down those protections fully from even the corrupted state they are in now, it'll be used to kill all of us long before it kills the evil.
Both Gary and the cucked man had a similar situation. Highly emotional and extreme situations, in which they reacted in ways we can all understand. That's why "crime of passion" laws exist, so that those people can still be tried and convicted of their clear lawbreaking but not punished so wildly that everyone's sense of justice is perverted.
But they are. While you're not wrong that intent is considered in charging and sentencing all the time, we're not talking about the difference between manslaughter and murder, we're talking about the difference between murder and murder with a "hate crime" enhancement.
It's not illegal to hate a group of people. It's not illegal to say the most horrid things about that group of people. It's not illegal to preach that you want that group of people eradicated from existence.
In fact, not only is it not illegal it's protected under the law. If the government were to punish you for saying any of these things it would be illegal suppression of free speech and 1st Amendment violations by the government are considered one of the worst trespasses it can commit.
All "hate crimes" are is an attempt to effectively criminalize something that they can't under the Constitution, and their very existence has a chilling effect on free speech. The government may not be able to punish you for saying you hate blacks/Jews/etc. but if you ever commit a crime against one, even if it's unrelated to your feelings towards that group, they have an extra punishment waiting for you.
It's frankly surreal that the government can say: "because you harbor beliefs that I am absolutely prohibited from punishing you for having- you get a harsher sentence" you can't logically combine an illegal act with a (specially protected) legal one and make it "mOR iLLeGaLEr".
There's a difference between intent and motive. Intent can often be inferred from forensic evidence, like if you ran someone over with your car over and over again, rather than just hitting them by accident. Whereas motive is nearly impossible to prove, though unfortunately our courts don't really care.
Killing someone intentionally vs unintentionally is absolutely relevant. But why you killed someone should only matter insofar as having a motive makes you more likely to be guilty as a matter of fact, not insofar as whether a given motive is admirable or contemptible.
Murder and self defense aren't decided by intent. They're decided by ethical justification. If you are put in a situation where you are being attacked and are legally in the right to defend yourself, it doesn't actually matter if you were thinking "I'm going to die" or "fuck this goon", or if you shot multiple times to stop the threat vs doing a mozambique drill because you wanted to make sure the goon died. A self defense shooting is justified with the actual actions taken by the attacker and defender.
Never should have been charged for tearing down an altar to Satan + everybody involved in approving it being set up in a state capitol should be in prison right now.
The process is the punishment. Now he is going to have to fight to get his guns back that were no doubt seized by the police because he was facing felony charges.
They have a liturgical calendar just like the Church does. satan cannot create, only mimick. I don't know their liturgical calendar very well, but Halloween is only their second biggest deal, the first is on the opposite side of the calendar. They also have a biggie in September.
Somebody should be able to give you a link to the original story, although the one I read didn't address your question adequately. Same old bs, "church of Satan only exists to try to make Christianity look foolish so it will be abolished from the public sphere." No the fuck it does not, but if they can accomplish that while they're at it?
Cringe-tians acting like they are Tenacious D and just defeated satan in a rock-off. This low impulse control simpleton probably had an extra shot of vanilla syrup in his latte that morning and went hulk smash on a paper mache goats head statue. Meanwhile muslims are burning down churches all over the west, sorry "renovating" them. But this is winning somehow?
Listen the "satanists" are trolling you. Let me know when you have priorities straight and we can go retake Constantinople from the Turks.
I no longer believe this. These people have convinced me that they truly believe in the tenets of Satanism -- lies and hedonism -- regardless of whether or not they believe in "Satan" himself.
And like the false god worshipping Narnians in The Last Battle, they're bringing it into existence whether they realize it or not.
Good judgement, now just remove the whole category of hate crime when standard laws should be enough for targeted assault and harassment.
This - is it a crime? Yes? Then why does the parituclar motivation matter? No? Then fuck off, opinions can't be illegal.
Hate crime is nothing more than a vehicle for thought crime.
It's about enforcing the pecking order. Same with domestic violence.
I'm no legal historian, but I wager that once we opened the precedent with "crimes of passion" as a legal defense that it was all downhill from there. Because its a real quick turnaround from "charges lowered because of intent" to increasing them too.
Which never made sense to me because someone who commits a crime of passion is just as likely, maybe more likely to reoffend because they lack self-control. If it's not the same crime it will be something else.
A common exception is the "guy catching his wife in bed with another man". In that case you can argue that any reasonable person would react the same way, but that's just a legal hack because we think it was justified then.
I mean, I've never heard it not used in the scenario you just described. Where a guy is in a situation where his emotions can overload so suddenly from such a level of disrespect that his actions are not indicative of his overall normal nature.
Which I don't disagree with either. There are some situations where reasonable men can be expected to act unreasonable and their actions therein shouldn't be held as heavy. Everybody's favorite dad Gary Plauche committed clear murder, but we can all see the "passion" that lead to it and don't want him to be truly punished for it. I'd even say the legal system was broken if it tried to be so rigid.
But the problem with laws is always that the moment you make them, they will be abused to the worst ways by the worst people. Suddenly "a man committing violence after being cheated on" is on equal legal footing as "he heard the word nigger, he couldn't stop himself."
Again if we're arguing that it's a situation where reasonable men can be expected to act unreasonable (why Gary why), then I agree it's justifiable but that's a legal hack because they don't want to simply argue it was justifiable. There may or may not be intent and I don't consider it a crime of passion. (he couldn't help himself in the moment)
Exactly. I didn't want to bother searching for examples where the defense has been used, but yeah that's about what I was thinking. I would gladly put such an animal down before executing a man who methodically planned out a murder. The latter case may or may not have mitigating circumstances. The former is an animal that shouldn't live among humans.
The difference with Gary is that the state was abdicating its duty by not quickly executing a child molester. The crime was objectively egregious enough to justify vigilante justice. The state has no duty to execute your wife because she cheated on you or to execute a stranger because he cut you off on the road.
This paints a hilarious mental image! Lol carry on ...
He was literally in cuffs getting off the plane to be taken to trial. Everyone has a right to trial to prove their guilt, even if its obvious and egregious of that guilt. Because as I said:
I don't care about protecting pedos or criminal. Heck I think druggies should be executed en masse. But I know the moment we cut down those protections fully from even the corrupted state they are in now, it'll be used to kill all of us long before it kills the evil.
Both Gary and the cucked man had a similar situation. Highly emotional and extreme situations, in which they reacted in ways we can all understand. That's why "crime of passion" laws exist, so that those people can still be tried and convicted of their clear lawbreaking but not punished so wildly that everyone's sense of justice is perverted.
Kill dozer enters the chat
But they are. While you're not wrong that intent is considered in charging and sentencing all the time, we're not talking about the difference between manslaughter and murder, we're talking about the difference between murder and murder with a "hate crime" enhancement.
It's not illegal to hate a group of people. It's not illegal to say the most horrid things about that group of people. It's not illegal to preach that you want that group of people eradicated from existence.
In fact, not only is it not illegal it's protected under the law. If the government were to punish you for saying any of these things it would be illegal suppression of free speech and 1st Amendment violations by the government are considered one of the worst trespasses it can commit.
All "hate crimes" are is an attempt to effectively criminalize something that they can't under the Constitution, and their very existence has a chilling effect on free speech. The government may not be able to punish you for saying you hate blacks/Jews/etc. but if you ever commit a crime against one, even if it's unrelated to your feelings towards that group, they have an extra punishment waiting for you.
It's frankly surreal that the government can say: "because you harbor beliefs that I am absolutely prohibited from punishing you for having- you get a harsher sentence" you can't logically combine an illegal act with a (specially protected) legal one and make it "mOR iLLeGaLEr".
There's a difference between intent and motive. Intent can often be inferred from forensic evidence, like if you ran someone over with your car over and over again, rather than just hitting them by accident. Whereas motive is nearly impossible to prove, though unfortunately our courts don't really care.
Killing someone intentionally vs unintentionally is absolutely relevant. But why you killed someone should only matter insofar as having a motive makes you more likely to be guilty as a matter of fact, not insofar as whether a given motive is admirable or contemptible.
Hey wait, I object! You killed 247 commies? That's admirable ;)
Excellent point
The legal system isn’t meant to reform. It’s meant to punish. The only reason people consider reform is because leftism has taken over the culture.
If you're saying that reform rather than punishment is a leftist ideal, I'll disagree.
Simultaneously, we used to hang horse thieves and that was a good thing.
Murder and self defense aren't decided by intent. They're decided by ethical justification. If you are put in a situation where you are being attacked and are legally in the right to defend yourself, it doesn't actually matter if you were thinking "I'm going to die" or "fuck this goon", or if you shot multiple times to stop the threat vs doing a mozambique drill because you wanted to make sure the goon died. A self defense shooting is justified with the actual actions taken by the attacker and defender.
Correct. Intent is either self-reported data or assumption, neither of which belong in a legal proceeding.
Waukesha
I can give you details about that ...
yes our government is corrupt. Preventing racial cleansing might not always be a bad thing?
Never should have been charged for tearing down an altar to Satan + everybody involved in approving it being set up in a state capitol should be in prison right now.
Exiled
Sent to their master.
The process is the punishment. Now he is going to have to fight to get his guns back that were no doubt seized by the police because he was facing felony charges.
Sorry buddy we already melted your guns down or sold them to Mexican cartels.
Edge lord atheist faggots. seething.
I'd put "beheaded a Satan statue" at the top of my resume and on my business cards. That just sounds way more badass that it was.
never should have been charged in the first place.
Good. Better late than never.
The gates of Hell will not prevail.
Good. Hopefully there's no Satanic bullshit during Christmas this year
They have a liturgical calendar just like the Church does. satan cannot create, only mimick. I don't know their liturgical calendar very well, but Halloween is only their second biggest deal, the first is on the opposite side of the calendar. They also have a biggie in September.
Why was there a statue of Satan in the capitol? What's the whole story here?
The people in power are satanists.
It wasn't actually a statue. It was paper mache.
Somebody should be able to give you a link to the original story, although the one I read didn't address your question adequately. Same old bs, "church of Satan only exists to try to make Christianity look foolish so it will be abolished from the public sphere." No the fuck it does not, but if they can accomplish that while they're at it?
Cringe-tians acting like they are Tenacious D and just defeated satan in a rock-off. This low impulse control simpleton probably had an extra shot of vanilla syrup in his latte that morning and went hulk smash on a paper mache goats head statue. Meanwhile muslims are burning down churches all over the west, sorry "renovating" them. But this is winning somehow?
Listen the "satanists" are trolling you. Let me know when you have priorities straight and we can go retake Constantinople from the Turks.
I no longer believe this. These people have convinced me that they truly believe in the tenets of Satanism -- lies and hedonism -- regardless of whether or not they believe in "Satan" himself.
And like the false god worshipping Narnians in The Last Battle, they're bringing it into existence whether they realize it or not.
You are what you do. Ironic retards still go to hell.
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and calls abortion a sacrament like a duck. . .
I don't care. Fuck them.
This much is good, the rest was an ignorant rant. You should look up the original story.