Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Prosectors Say the Kansas Shooting of Garmin Engineers Was a Hate Crime (theverge.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the hate-crime dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: Federal prosecutors have filed a hate crime charge against 51-year-old Kansas resident Adam Purinton, according to the Department of Justice. Purinton, who is accused of shooting three people in an Olathe bar, reportedly told a local Garmin engineer to "get out of my country" before opening fire. Purinton is currently being held on first-degree murder charges filed by local prosecutors. Today's indictment accuses Purinton of committing murder "because of Kuchibhotla's actual and perceived race, color, religion and national origin," with additional charges for the attempted murder of Madasani and violations of federal firearm statutes. The Justice Department declined to say whether it will pursue the death penalty, although it is authorized by the hate crime statute.

14 of 227 comments (clear)

  1. Hold up by cfalcon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So a state can take away the death penalty for murder, and there's no death penalty for murder. But if someone murders for RACISM, then the feds can come in overrule the state? That's a little bit odd, right?

    1. Re:Hold up by Mike+Van+Pelt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, Colin Ferguson didn't get a "hate crime" enhancement to his mass murder charges, even though he said his goal was to kill as many white people and Asians as possible. He did get over 300 year sentence, so I suppose anything else would be superfluous. Still, if his admittedly racially biased mass murder wasn't a "hate crime", the concept is irredeemably broken.

    2. Re:Hold up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      If you hate one person, you will kill that one person. If you hate an entire group, you will kill many people. Mass murder shouldn't be worse than murder?!?!?!?

      Because to murder that one person you hate may mean killing a few others to get way or get to them, multiple murders may happen, but if you hate an entire group, then only the fact that you got caught meant you did not kill more people.

      THAT is why "hate crimes" murders are worse than just murder.

  2. I don't care WHY he did it by chuckugly · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Murder is murder, I'm really a lot less interested in why than what he did. The concept of "hate crimes" is a completely broken one, but at least the guy is getting prosecuted. Hope there is a fair trial and justice is served.

    1. Re:I don't care WHY he did it by msauve · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Murder is murder, I'm really a lot less interested in why than what he did."

      Why do you think so?

      The "why" can make a great deal of difference. Someone killing a person for molesting their kid is different than killing someone randomly.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    2. Re:I don't care WHY he did it by msauve · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The only difference between murder and execution is the law.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    3. Re:I don't care WHY he did it by Rockoon · · Score: 1, Insightful

      He said 'objective', not 'subjective'

      He is right. You would also be if you knew the difference.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    4. Re:I don't care WHY he did it by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Huh? Motive is at the very heart of a criminal prosecution. Judges and/or juries are supposed to have latitude in findings of guilt, or findings of guilt on a range of charges, or even of differential sentencing, depending upon motive. I realize that some here have a hard time grasping that the world isn't black and white, but there's always nuance. Some serial killer who gets his jollies killing people is inevitably going to get a far harsher sentence than someone who killed the person who molested their child, and it's down to motive and state of mind.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    5. Re:I don't care WHY he did it by Rockoon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Hate crime" means whatever the State decides it means at any given moment, and so long as there is an appeal to emotion associated with it they will get away with redefining it however is convenient for the moment.

      While the law is written such that motive is considered, thats completely different than the motive itself being an additional crime, which is exactly what "hate crime" is.. and additional crime added on.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    6. Re:I don't care WHY he did it by blindseer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      An excellent post but you didn't really address the issue of a "hate crime" only the differing levels of homicide. In many places there's generally three or four levels of criminal homicide, which addresses criminal negligence resulting in death, manslaughter (which might be the same as the first), second degree murder (an intentional act with intent to kill), first degree murder (intentional homicide with premeditation or of a government official). What the concept of "hate crime" does is add to the punishment if the court can find a case of the accused acting against the victim because the victim was some sort minority, or other protected class of person, and the accused is not a member of some protected class.

      This concept of "hate crime" violates the concept of the law being blind to the kind of person being accused. All people should be equal under the law. If a person kills another with premeditated intent then that should be murder in the first degree. All instances of murder one is a "hate crime" because people don't generally kill people they love. Why one kills another is important, and should be the case up to a point, do we really need to punish people more severely because of the differences in skin color, religion, sexual orientation, or whatever?

      If a Packers fan kills a Bears fan because the Bears fan insulted the Packers then is that not just as much a "hate crime" if a Muslim kills a Christian because the Christian insulted Mohammed? Each case is a violation of rights on all kinds of levels, a serious crime was committed in both cases, so don't think I'm saying either should not be punished severely. I'm just having a tough time thinking that one is "greater" crime than the other.

      I also don't like these "with a gun" laws. People will kill others by stabbing, tossing out windows, running them over, lighting them on fire, beating them with a pipe in the conservatory, or hanging them by rope in the kitchen. If a person kills by shooting another with a revolver in the library though then that is some special level of evil that must be punished extra severely... or something. Life isn't a game of Cluedo. Then again, maybe we should make it more like a game, with rules spelled out in advance that everyone must follow equally. Reverend Green should get the same punishment for a crime as Mrs. White.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    7. Re:I don't care WHY he did it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      "Hate crime" means whatever the State decides it means at any given moment, and so long as there is an appeal to emotion associated with it they will get away with redefining it however is convenient for the moment.

      Ah, somebody's letting their ideological bias shape their own response. In reality, all legal concepts mean whatever they're defined by the relevant State decides, and they're always subject to redefinition for convenience. Legal codes are not fixed in stone, not any more.

      While the law is written such that motive is considered, thats completely different than the motive itself being an additional crime, which is exactly what "hate crime" is.. and additional crime added on.

      Nope! Hate Crimes can be handled entirely appended to the actual crime, not separate and distinct. Sorry nobody taught you otherwise, but I suspect you wouldn't have wanted to learn.

  3. Re:Defining what a "hate crime" is. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The annoying argument that "all violent crimes are hate crimes" is stupid and incorrect because a "hate crime" is a crime perpetrated not against an individual but rather indiscriminately against a member belonging to a group that the perpetrator hates.

    Glad we could clear that up.

    NO that's not clear. Why should the punishment be different if the perp just hated the victim's group instead of the individual? "I just wanted to kill a [group name] instead of I wanted to kill [specific individual]? Specificity does not change the action or the result. Ideology/politics/religion be damned.

  4. Re:Defining what a "hate crime" is. by c0y · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When the crime is committed on the basis of victim's group identity, the other members of the group have reason to fear being targeted for the same reason and there are more victims. More victims = more punishment.

    These laws are intended in part to prevent civil unrest (in the form of race riots) that can occur when one community perceives they are being targeted and law enforcement is not adequately protecting them. They (understandably) may take law into their own hands through mob violence and then we're in for full scale civil unrest (because mob justice is rarely so.... "just" and is more likely to create the same kind of racial hostility in return.

    The motive matters because when that motive is animus towards a large group of people, the consequences of group-level retaliation are bad for all of society.

  5. Re: Don't sleep through history classes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Wrong. It's based on the fact that all are equal, not that some groups get extra protection, which distorts that concept.