Arson at Gay club in Seattle on New Years Eve - Hate Crime?

[xoxJanexox]

That has nothing to do with anything.

There should not be laws that protect one group more than another.
You say gays get beat up more, but you don't really know.
Why does it really matter?

If I get beat up why is it less worse that if you get beat up, for example.
It is not.

One person shouldn't be punished more because you may have had a harder life that me.
This should have nothing to do with nothing.

Hate crime laws are a sham.
Sure i mean stopping genocide is one thing, but fairness is another.

The fact that my murder may get punished less than someone in another social situation is just plain wrong.

I am human like everyone else.
People should be charged with violating a human, not a gay or some other group.

Hate crimes are not only crimes. They are crimes + Hate.
So, in order to prove them you need different kind of evidence.
That's why it carries more sentence,
And that's why it is difficult to prove as well.

It is not enough for the victim to be from a certain minority group.
There must be evidence as well that the crime was motivated by hate.
Again, this is why it is difficult to prove.

So, it is not as simple as it is portrayed.

[Shyla Wild]

One person shouldn't be punished more because you may have had a harder life that me.
This should have nothing to do with nothing.

Hate crime laws are a sham.
Sure i mean stopping genocide is one thing, but fairness is another.

The problem is when someone targets only one group. If you are only killing gays or blacks or jews...that is how a holocaust starts.

[Shyla Wild]

That's why it carries more sentence,
And that's why it is difficult to prove as well.

In honesty, hate crimes are added to sentences and in theory are presently handled more as a bonus. Meaning as a prosecutor if you can get the conviction "Good", and if not "Drop It". They are rarely tried alone. The reason they are difficult to prove is that evident is mainly here-say and word of mouth. Very little concrete evidence is normally found.

Lawyers looking for a plea bargain, may attempt to add this to the charges in hopes of the defendant will trade the dropping of some charges for the bargain.

[Rockheart]

Hate crimes are not only crimes. They are crimes + Hate.
So, in order to prove them you need different kind of evidence.
That's why it carries more sentence,
And that's why it is difficult to prove as well.

It is not enough for the victim to be from a certain minority group.
There must be evidence as well that the crime was motivated by hate.
Again, this is why it is difficult to prove.

So, it is not as simple as it is portrayed.

That makes no sense.

All violent crimes are hate.
It is all motivated by hate.
Hate is hate.

If I beat you up and rob you and you happen to be gay, I get charged more.
If I do the same and you are straight, the charge may be less.
This is just plain stupid.

It is simple very simple.
Humans are humans, charges should be the same for violating humans, no matter the reason.

[Rockheart]

The problem is when someone targets only one group. If you are only killing gays or blacks or jews...that is how a holocaust starts.

So killing only construction workers enmasse is ok?
It is genocide too, it is also murder.
It still makes no sense why it should be punished differently at all.

Why do you have to spell out who not to murder.
Don't murder humans, don't commit genocide.

Hate laws and bully laws are completely stupid and unfair and not well thought out.

If you kill 100 jews then you should get charged for killing 100 humans.
It shouldn't matter who they are, what their gender is, religion or anything.
You violated a human's rights.

Getting extra rights to make up for some perceived mis-balance of society is not fair where crime and punishment is concerned.
Sure give immigrants a leg up on employment or make laws so businesses have to hire gay or handicapped employees.
Don't punish someone differently if they kill a handicapped person vs a healthier person.

Just because i have no visible handicaps or anything, why am I considered less of a person in the eyes of the law.
I should not be, this all goes against the basic fairness of the legal system.

[xoxJanexox]

In honesty, hate crimes are added to sentences and in theory are presently handled more as a bonus. Meaning as a prosecutor if you can get the conviction "Good", and if not "Drop It". They are rarely tried alone. The reason they are difficult to prove is that evident is mainly here-say and word of mouth. Very little concrete evidence is normally found.

Lawyers looking for a plea bargain, may attempt to add this to the charges in hopes of the defendant will trade the dropping of some charges for the bargain.

Shyla is up studying law and the bad girl Jane is just about to head out for clubbing

[xoxJanexox]

That makes no sense.

All violent crimes are hate.
It is all motivated by hate.
Hate is hate.

If I beat you up and rob you and you happen to be gay, I get charged more.
If I do the same and you are straight, the charge may be less.
This is just plain stupid.

It is simple very simple.
Humans are humans, charges should be the same for violating humans, no matter the reason.

Yes, this would be plain stupid,
but this is not what hate crimes are about.

[Rockheart]

Yes, this would be plain stupid,
but this is not what hate crimes are about.

It is exactly what hate crimes are about.
They are trying to punish people more for hating against certain groups.
If you beat up a perceived minority or group you will be charge differently.
This is not fair at all.

The same crime, the same punishment.
It should not matter who the person you attacked is.
Violate a human get charged for violating a human.

That means I could pretend to be gay, just to send you to jail longer for beating me up.
This is the most unfair thing I can think of.

Certain groups want fairness by getting a legal advantage over others?
What a joke in a democracy.

[TSFantasia]

No you are talking the reason it happened.
Which is different than the degrees of murder.

Plain and simple first degree murder is as I said.
IT HAS TO BE PREMEDITATED, if it is not it is NEVER first degree
It has zero to do with level of hate at all, that is sentencing.
It can be first degree murder and also called a hate crime but then it may be a higher sentence.
First degree murder is first degree murder, no matter the subject of the murder.

That is not my point anyway.
I am not arguing what the murder law is I am arguing that hate crimes only charged when certain groups is not fair.
It should just be a crime is a crime.

If someone commits hate against you the punishment should be the same if you are Gay, straight, or racially different.
It should not matter, HATE is HATE PERIOD.

It is not fair at all that someone would be punished differently no matter who you hate against.
Our society is fucked up this way.
Special interest groups are fucking up the fairness of the law.

Commit murder, go to jail for 25 years.
Why does it matter if the person is gay or straight or anything.
You fucking killed them, how much more hateful can you get?

The law is fucking retarded.

There is good historical reasons for Governments to deter crimes of hate when victims are sought out to be assaulted or killed based solely on their race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, etc. As it is just not the crime against the isolated individual that the Govt/state is concerned with but also with the implied threat of violence to the targeted group. No one is saying that an aggravated assault against any citizen should be treated as anymore serious regardless of the person's ethnic, colour, etc identity.
The added penalty is for the motivation being hate and bias only. In other words there was no escalation of hostilities between the individuals that leads to the violence they simple seek out a person they do not know to inflict violence upon the group they belong to. If someone gets into a bar fight with you its not because they specifically hated you. They are drunk and looking for a fight and you just happened to be there. Is different then a group of men entering a club with baseball bats (or whatever) and seeking/singling out individuals based on their race, sexual orientation etc. and beating them into a coma.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime

And violent bias related crimes against the LGBT community is still higher than the general population.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/...eople-the-rise

[Rockheart]

There is good historical reasons for Governments to deter crimes of hate when victims are sought out to be assaulted or killed based solely on their race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, etc. As it is just not the crime against the isolated individual that the Govt/state is concerned with but also with the implied threat of violence to the targeted group. No one is saying that an aggravated assault against any citizen should be treated as anymore serious regardless of the person's ethnic, colour, etc identity.
The added penalty is for the motivation being hate and bias only. In other words there was no escalation of hostilities between the individuals that leads to the violence they simple seek out a person they do not know to inflict violence upon the group they belong to. If someone gets into a bar fight with you its not because they specifically hated you. They are drunk and looking for a fight and you just happened to be there. Is different then a group of men entering a club with baseball bats (or whatever) and seeking/singling out individuals based on their race, sexual orientation etc. and beating them into a coma.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime

Just because it is documented on the internet doesn't mean it is right.
If you hate me and beat me up it is a hate crime, how can you pick and choose like that.
What makes me less a human that you, for example.

If you beat me up and put me in a Coma you shouldn't get charged less because I happen to be a straight white guy.
It is just stupid Liberalism.
How does having laws like this protect anyone more than others? It doesn't protect anyone more.
The people that attack you know it is wrong, is it less wrong if they attack me?
No it is not less wrong. Complete load of BS.

I would hope if I get killed the person that killed me would not get off less because of some perceived fairness of the system.
Oh white guys kept black people down at one time, so this human is not important as some other human.

This is the whole reason there is human rights, so that all people are treated the same under the law and otherwise.
Not that some group can get their revenge because they feel many of their own have been hard done by in the past.

Hate Crime laws are not fair and you cannot convince me they are wrong.

The groups that are hated against change over time.
It doesn't build up because it changes.

The thing that never changes it this:
HATE IS HATE NO MATTER WHO IT IS DIRECTED AGAINST.
Why is it different if I hate you because you are Saskatchewan Roughrider fan, or you are gay.
It is just hate, plain and simple.

The rest is all mumbo jumbo.

[Rockheart]

Take this example:

A person commits arson and burns down a gay club because he hates those motherfuckers in there.
27 gay people die.

A person commits arson and burns down a straight club because he hates those motherfuckers in there.
27 Straight people die.

So you should charge this guy differently because the victims have sex with different people than each other?
You charge the guy more because you think gays are more hard done by?

27 humans died, you should get charged with killing 27 humans.
No more, no less.
No bullshit.
No mumbo jumbo.

[TSFantasia]

Just because it is documented on the internet doesn't mean it is right.
If you hate me and beat me up it is a hate crime, how can you pick and choose like that.
What makes me less a human that you, for example.

If you beat me up and put me in a Coma you shouldn't get charged less because I happen to be a straight white guy.
It is just stupid Liberalism.
How does having laws like this protect anyone more than others? It doesn't protect anyone more.
The people that attack you know it is wrong, is it less wrong if they attack me?
No it is not less wrong. Complete load of BS.

I would hope if I get killed the person that killed me would not get off less because of some perceived fairness of the system.
Oh white guys kept black people down at one time, so this human is not important as some other human.

This is the whole reason there is human rights, so that all people are treated the same under the law and otherwise.
Not that some group can get their revenge because they feel many of their own have been hard done by in the past.

Hate Crime laws are not fair and you cannot convince me they are wrong.

The groups that are hated against change over time.
It doesn't build up because it changes.

The thing that never changes it this:
HATE IS HATE NO MATTER WHO IT IS DIRECTED AGAINST.
Why is it different if I hate you because you are Saskatchewan Roughrider fan, or you are gay.
It is just hate, plain and simple.

The rest is all mumbo jumbo.

Agreed Hate is Hate and being gay is not the only category. Rider fans should be killed because they are annoying in their hollowed out watermelon helmets! Geeze they are obviously lower on the evolutionary scale than the rest of us ..lol.
But not every violent crime against any individual is based on HATE. A person gets beat up, stabbed, or shot during a robbery, car jacking that person doesn't HATE you they just want your car, your money & credit cards, etc. because they are drug addicts, etc.

[Rockheart]

Agreed Hate is Hate and being gay is not the only category. Rider fans should be killed because they are annoying in their hollowed out watermelon helmets! Geeze they are obviously lower on the evolutionary scale than the rest of us ..lol.
But not every violent crime against any individual is based on HATE. A person gets beat up, stabbed, or shot during a robbery, car jacking that person doesn't HATE you they just want your car, your money & credit cards, etc. because they are drug addicts, etc.

But you know for a fact if you Rob a gay person, it will be a hate crime.
If you rob me it won't

that is stupid.

[TSFantasia]

But you know for a fact if you Rob a gay person, it will be a hate crime.
If you rob me it won't

that is stupid.

Well I don't think that is how it works. They still would have to prove that the perpetrator knew the person they were robbing was gay and that was the motivation for robbing him.

[Guest]

Sections 318 and 319 of the Criminal Code

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/a...6.html#docCont


Hate Propaganda

Marginal note:Advocating genocide

• 318. (1) Every one who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.
• Marginal noteefinition of ?genocide?
  
  (2) In this section, ?genocide? means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group, namely,
  • (a) killing members of the group; or
  • (b) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction.
  
  
• Marginal note:Consent
  
  (3) No proceeding for an offence under this section shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.
• Definition of ?identifiable group?
  (4) In this section, ?identifiable group? means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.

• R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 318;
• 2004, c. 14, s. 1.

Previous Version
Marginal note:Public incitement of hatred

• 319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of
  • (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
  • (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
  
  
• Marginal note:Wilful promotion of hatred
  
  (2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of
  • (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
  • (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
  
  
• Marginal noteefences
  
  (3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)
  • (a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;
  • (b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;
  • (c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or
  • (d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.
  
  
• Marginal note:Forfeiture
  
  (4) Where a person is convicted of an offence under section 318 or subsection (1) or (2) of this section, anything by means of or in relation to which the offence was committed, on such conviction, may, in addition to any other punishment imposed, be ordered by the presiding provincial court judge or judge to be forfeited to Her Majesty in right of the province in which that person is convicted, for disposal as the Attorney General may direct.
• Marginal note:Exemption from seizure of communication facilities
  
  (5) Subsections 199(6) and (7) apply with such modifications as the circumstances require to section 318 or subsection (1) or (2) of this section.
• Marginal note:Consent
  
  (6) No proceeding for an offence under subsection (2) shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.
• Marginal noteefinitions
  
  (7) In this section,
  ?communicating?
  ? communiquer ?
  ?communicating? includes communicating by telephone, broadcasting or other audible or visible means;
  ?identifiable group?
  ? groupe identifiable ?
  ?identifiable group? has the same meaning as in section 318;
  ?public place?
  ? endroit public ?
  ?public place? includes any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, express or implied;
  ?statements?
  ? d?clarations ?
  ?statements? includes words spoken or written or recorded electronically or electro-magnetically or otherwise, and gestures, signs or other visible representations.