Colorado State FB players suspended
- Thread starter Sgt John
- Start date
As I recall, Dexter Manley could not even read, former Oklahoma State product, but par for the course for a top football school
Cerberus
In Dog We Trust
OUCH. sorry you feel that closed minded to see other opinions
xqj47alpha
Banned
Dang, and here i was thinking i had a clue by suggesting a need to revisit so-called "hate-crimes" and there ability to enhance adjudication.
edit
The theory behind enhancing a crime is the rule doesn't change. Only rules that require Specific Intent qualify.
somehow, if a jury of your peers is able to read your mind, they can enhance your punishment.
*not to include priors, just those that require reading minds
Last edited by a moderator:
efactor
Coming at you
When I read it, I was thinking the exact opposite. He was short sighted on the topic, almost to the point of ignorance. No offense, but to essentially suggest that there should be no such thing as a "hate crime" or that they shouldn't be punished differently is foolish. Not sure Mud really feels that way, as it could have been just a quick response on an internet site, but I found that reaction odd considering his other postings.
Like "premeditated" murder, hate crimes are specific, intended acts. Crime of any sort deserve punishment, but the degree of punishment should be increased if the act is planned. Hate crimes are premeditated actions even when they seem to occur spontaneously.
That said, I think hate crimes against ethnic groups need to include those against white people. Someone brought up the Reginald Denny beating after the Rodney King verdict. That was definitely a hate crime but because of the situation, was almost justified by the media.
cctekguy
Staff member
All violent crimes are hate crimes.
Unlike Murder 1 vs Murder 2, a hate crime does not have to be proven beyond public opinion.
It's completely subjective therefore has no place in a court of law.
Does it really matter WHY you kill someone? If you can increase the penalty for a hate crime then it stands to reason that the penalty can be decreased for a crime with a different label. A reduced sentence if you kill someone who is harming the environment....for instance.
It's like having different punishments for speeding depending on whether you were in a hurry or just not paying attention.
"Do you know how fast you were going"
"I'm sorry officer but I'm late for my wedding"
"Well, that makes you guilty of a haste crime. Your fine will be doubled."
It's BS (as so brilliantly posted earlier) and just another way to further cloud the letter of the law leaving us more at the mercy of the discretion of the court.
Unlike Murder 1 vs Murder 2, a hate crime does not have to be proven beyond public opinion.
It's completely subjective therefore has no place in a court of law.
Does it really matter WHY you kill someone? If you can increase the penalty for a hate crime then it stands to reason that the penalty can be decreased for a crime with a different label. A reduced sentence if you kill someone who is harming the environment....for instance.
It's like having different punishments for speeding depending on whether you were in a hurry or just not paying attention.
"Do you know how fast you were going"
"I'm sorry officer but I'm late for my wedding"
"Well, that makes you guilty of a haste crime. Your fine will be doubled."
It's BS (as so brilliantly posted earlier) and just another way to further cloud the letter of the law leaving us more at the mercy of the discretion of the court.
efactor
Coming at you
Just a completely lame argument. Your lame attempt at humor is a cover for the fact that you have no valid point to convey, so you resort to the ridiculous.
All violent crimes are not hate crimes. Most truly violent crime doesn't start out with the intention of true physical harm. It escalates based on circumstance. A robbery turns into a shooting, a drug deal turns into a shooting, a verbal confrontation as a sporting event turns into someone being beaten to death. All crime deserves to be punished, but intent is huge in our legal system. I have always believed that clear cut cases of rape should carry the same penalty as murder since it is a premeditated act. Not talking about the she said, he said cases where maybe it was and maybe it wasn't (Rothlisberger situation, Kobe situation).
A hate crime is not public opinion. It is very defined. People accused of murder are charged at a different level and the jury decides the ultimate verdict, so another poor argument on your part. You come off as a guy who fights change and wants things the way "they used to be the the US was good". Times change and laws change. This is a good change.
All violent crimes are not hate crimes. Most truly violent crime doesn't start out with the intention of true physical harm. It escalates based on circumstance. A robbery turns into a shooting, a drug deal turns into a shooting, a verbal confrontation as a sporting event turns into someone being beaten to death. All crime deserves to be punished, but intent is huge in our legal system. I have always believed that clear cut cases of rape should carry the same penalty as murder since it is a premeditated act. Not talking about the she said, he said cases where maybe it was and maybe it wasn't (Rothlisberger situation, Kobe situation).
A hate crime is not public opinion. It is very defined. People accused of murder are charged at a different level and the jury decides the ultimate verdict, so another poor argument on your part. You come off as a guy who fights change and wants things the way "they used to be the the US was good". Times change and laws change. This is a good change.
xqj47alpha
Banned
enhancing punishment in this style was designed in an attempt to protect minority groups as a deterrent.
The so-called "Hate" is a complete misnomer, simply because there is an element of hate in every violent act.
most professionals involved with rape victims will tell you rape is itself a hate crime.
it just seems to me maybe it's time to revisit this type of legislation in the penal code as it has become over-broad and almost impossible to have a meeting of the minds. And the PC is a contract so in order to be valid, there must be a meeting of the minds.
The so-called "Hate" is a complete misnomer, simply because there is an element of hate in every violent act.
most professionals involved with rape victims will tell you rape is itself a hate crime.
it just seems to me maybe it's time to revisit this type of legislation in the penal code as it has become over-broad and almost impossible to have a meeting of the minds. And the PC is a contract so in order to be valid, there must be a meeting of the minds.