Slashdot Mirror
Prosectors Say the Kansas Shooting of Garmin Engineers Was a Hate Crime (theverge.com)
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.
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?
Donald Trump is what happens when uneducated racists show up to vote, Russia hacks our election, and bamboozles stupid liberals into staying home.
All you racist trash can eat a bowl of dicks.
We all know you supported a traitor, and continue to support him now that you know he is a traitor. That's because you uneducated racists are traitors yourselves.
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.
must be racial? I wasn't upset when Microsoft sent my job to China because of their race. I was upset that I worked hard and did a good job, and I knew my replacements couldn't do the job.
That the victim worked for Garmin is a fig leaf. This story is nothing more than flamebait for the "hate speech is free speech crowd".
Notice that nobody is making "THEY TOOK OUR JERBS!" jokes anymore.
I don't support shooting people, but yeah...foreigners need to GTFO and go be a part of their own local economy. America first, for Americans.
What's a prosector ?
What's a porf rader ?
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.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
It really shouldn't matter why you hate someone enough to kill him.
What's the moral difference between murdering someone because he's black or Indian, and murdering him because he's wearing a hat that blocks your view of the movie you're watching?
And there's another thing wrong with "hate crimes". Some "hate crimes" are more equal than others. How many times do whites get attacked by blacks for racist reasons - and it doesn't get called a "hate crime". A gang of blacks videos themselves beating a handicapped white kid, shouting "We hate white people!" in the process, and it's not immediately called a hate crime...
Thats exactly what this is. Murder is already bad enough; a person's prejudices make no difference. A law like this places value on race. "Hate crime" is nothing more than a tool for politicians. Start a race/sex riot and then feed the common people a perception that they feel bad for the "atrocities," while at the same time "hate crimes" also serve as a tool to keep that hated minority in check out of fear. Crimes are punished as if it's "justice," while the other half feels better long enough to calm the hell down but still have the same "could happen to me" creeping in the back of their minds. Both sides win and therefore it changes nothing. Every now and then a "commoner" becomes self aware and realizes the BS, finds a niche, and does something about it. That's when fucktards like in the U.S. and U.K. start pumping the word "terrorism" into the media. No, people are pissed to the point of mental break and you caused it. But, anything to keep those that matter safe and the rest scared into submission. Think of the children. Big brother has got your back.
Time we get biblical on all who murder.
All the people who attended it were fairly affluent well educated Indians. I am sure in every community outreach people who have the time, energy and motivation to listen to bunch of law enforcement officials on a Wednesday evening would be fairly affluent and well educated. Made us realize despite conflicting media portrayals these are just plain hard working underpaid unsung unheralded Americans trying to do the best job they can.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
as long as they cry 'racism'...how long before our judicial elite give the OK to nonwhites chasing whites down in the streets and lynching us?
eat shiat and bark at the moon
a person who dissects corpses for examination or anatomical demonstration.
love the proof reading
Pretty much any premeditated murder is usually not because you think fondly of the person you waste. Actually, killing someone because you dislike the group he belongs to requires less hate than killing the guy that slept with your wife, independent of the subgroup he belongs to.
Simply because any hate you may have for a group distributes better than hate concentrated on a single person. But I guess we needed to put a label on something, and it should of course be one that is loaded negatively enough so people quickly realize how they should think of it.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
He claimed he was a high caste Hindu speaking an Aryan language. (The language family currently known as Indo-European was called Indo-Aryan then). He claimed he belong to the ruling caste from Caucusus that conquered India. He avowed that he has as much prejudice against low caste people as white people have against black people. He cited the miscegenation laws of USA and claimed the traditional Indian caste system enforced similar laws and maintained his racial purity. So, "I am white, let me in". That was his argument
It reached the Supreme Court, and Justice Sutherland ruled, conceding that he was a Caucasian by language, he denied he is white by race by the common understanding of the word White race. So his application was denied
What is really interesting is, no one counter argued that white people were not prejudiced nor did anyone see anything wrong in being prejudiced. We have come a long way baby.
[Citation Provided]
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
A republic is founded on the principal that the rights of minorities must be protected or the majority will terrorize and exploit them: what you see in shithole "democracies" all over the world. Hate crimes dissuade that and motive is an essential element of the criminal justice system. That's why murder is not manslaughter is not negligence.
Why does it matter if something is a hate crime? Are they more dead? Are most murders done in a loving way that somehow makes the experience more pleasurable for the victim?
Premeditated Murder is premeditated murder. How does a persons opinion on race, color, whatever impact the severity of the crime or the punishment?
Motive can determine what kind of crime something is. So let's say you hit someone with your car and killed them. Suppose you did it because:
--You were swerving to avoid hitting someone else, your motive was to avoid hurting another person, not to hurt them. That would likely be no charge, but at most Involuntary Manslaughter since there was no malice, no intent to kill.
--You swerve to hit them because you believe you see them strangling an animal, and it makes you fly in to a rage and want to hurt them (but not necessarily kill them). That would be First Degree Manslaughter.
--You swerve to hit them because they are a person you hate and they flip you off and you decide that fuck it, they deserve to die for disrespecting you. That would be Second Degree Murder.
--You swerve to hit them because you set out to kill them, you were looking for this particular person with the express intent of killing them when you found them. That would be First Degree Murder.
In all cases they are dead because you swerved in to them with your car. However the law can treat you very different based on your intent in the case. It is codified in to law that why someone did something matters, a whole lot.
Is a "prosector", and does it run on covfefe?
Sam Tyler: I think we need to explore whether this attempted murder was a hate crime.
Gene: What as opposed to one of those I-really-really-like-you sort of murders?
It would be weird if "hate crimes" meant that a crime was done intentionally, right?
So far, I guess my impression is that "hate crime" seem to be a accusation of crime of having associated yourself to something that in turn is linked to a particular crime.
If I have learned something in my 41 y.o. life, it is that "hate" would come to mean that you attribute something, and usually something negative, about something or someone. That is it.
In North American babble (I am a European), it seems that the expression "hate" commonly mean something idiotic which isn't explained, or couldn't be explained, some kind of expressed sentiment, with this label "hate" which is either meant as something accusatory, or meaning as being an exaggeration.
So, I suspect that that states step in between, and label "hate" to things in both these ways with the act of speculative prosecution (more like persecution), by getting to accuse someone as a means of exaggeration (because of own policy of wanting to do so, to target group actions they find disagreeable), and by getting to exaggerate on the motives of an offender having committed a crime (or maybe not) by conflating the mere intention to do/commit/perform a crime (whatever that means, meaning the willful decision to act to do something specific, or possibly, to not do something specific) with whatever things thought to be contributing to someone accusing someone of a "hate crime" in the first place.
I guess "hate crimes" might be a state's way of denying/disallowing an individual, for expressing a sentiment that could be thought of as being "political", as if interfering with current policies and/or expressed values.
In addition to there being something deeply wrong and paradoxical in attributing "hate crime" with an offense (conflating motives and grouping offenses together in some kind of mass accusation), I suspect there might be something hypocritical about hate crime, which is why I do not like this type of term. As for the suspected hypocrisy, It could be as simple as enacting 'hate', by accusing or prosecuting someone for a "hate crime".
Whats a prosector?
This is why hate crime laws are stupid, they are too subjective. From the outset they are biased laws, meant to protect ONLY brown people from white people, yet racism and hate is everywhere, even towards white people. By their own logic ANY crime that involes HATE is subject to these laws, but they arent are they?
Fuck hate crime laws, they are just another tool to oppress thought.
Beaumanish should be prosected for hate crimes against the English language.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
What is a prosector?
'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
I can't think of any murder by someone that is infatuated with the victim unless that are mentally bent. But that is probably true most of the time as well. Put them away either way....