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?
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.
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...
No one is preventing you from doing so.
There will be consequences of doing so.
Freedom of speech is not freedom from the consequences of your speech.
By that logic there is freedom of murder as well.
Well, in that case, why don't you take all your countrymen back to where they belong? I mean, "Yankee go home" is still as valid today as it has been 60 years ago.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
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
By that logic there is freedom of murder as well.
No, because there are conspiracy or attempted laws which do not apply to speech.
If he worked for Apple Maps it would have been justifiable homicide.
Have gnu, will travel.
We can learn from the original native's mistake.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
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
Wrong. It's based on the fact that all are equal, not that some groups get extra protection, which distorts that concept.
I am gonna call this one out.
He almost certainly isn't certified.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
I may be a wee bit stoned. However, I just want to say I kinda like you guy(s). I really do get a giggle from your work. I'm not sure who wold agree, but I'd call it an art. I am most fond of how they want you to die and are going to sell your sister into sexual slavery. I'm not even kidding. I appreciate you as much as I appreciate apps guy - and I kinda love apps guy.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Meh... Bit of a non sequitur, really. Unfortunately, the verbiage is confusing.
The discussion should be about the liberty of free speech. Which, for good reason, we do not have. We are free to yell fire in the theater, even when there is no fire. What we are not, is at liberty to shout that in those circumstances.
Unfortunately, people get liberty and freedom confused, with alarming frequency. You are free to kill me, you are not at liberty to do so. If I try to harm you, you have a right to kill me. If I try to harm your family, you have an obligation to defend them, which may be an obligation to kill me. This confuses people.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
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.
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?
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.
It's a fact... that you just made up on the spot. Feel free to justify it with convoluted hypothetical situations.
should of course be one that is loaded negatively enough so people quickly realize how they should think of it.
You are complaining that people are being encouraged to think that racially aggravated murder is bad? I must say, I don't really have a problem with that.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Right, either way it's the Democrat's faults. The people who actually voted for an ambulatory citrus fruit are in no way responsible for their actions because... why exactly?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Beaumanish should be prosected for hate crimes against the English language.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Any motivation for murder is bad. I do hope we can agree on this.
But if you can't hate groups of people without any rhyme or reason anymore, how do you convince a soldier to go to war? You think it's easy to kill people indiscriminately? Just because they happen to have the wrong colored shirt you are supposed to shoot someone in a war, that's not easy to sell, ya know? You have to dehumanize them first and convince your soldiers that all of them deserve to die because they're ALL evil bastards who do unspeakably horrible things. The person you're looking at through your scope has to die, not for something he did but for the group of people he belongs to.
How is that not a hate crime?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
What is a prosector?
'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
How is that not a hate crime?
Because it's not the definition of what a hate crime is. "hate crime" is an actual term with an actual definition. Concern trolling about the particular name of a term is about the weakest form of argument.
https://www.fbi.gov/investigat...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Ah, ok. So according to that definition shooting enemy soldiers is simply not a crime, else it would fit.
Good that we got that out of the way.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I don't really get your point. Are you talking about crime or hate crime now?
Or are you still arguing that your own personal definition of "hate crime" is stupid? You won't find disagreement from me there.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
I'm talking about the definition of hate crime ("[...]a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her membership (or perceived membership) in a certain social group", according to Wikipedia) being a hate crime when someone does it against a group he hates, but gets decorated with medals if he does it against a group the government hates.
Sorry, but this is fucked up. Not so much the part where it's a crime. More the part where you get praised and decorated for it.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
as we have for the past 30 years now.... in BOTH major parties
MAYBE, just maybe its time to STOP voting for the D or the R....
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
the american system as it has worked forever elected trump. lets stop playing word games
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
You're way off topic from the original thing, but whatever.
Are you arguing that it's always the greater evil to have soldiers to kill peope from other countries? Or that it's never necessary? Or that they should never be recognised for what they do?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
We're talking about people who voted for him for the Republican nomination and then for President, and sit around like little snowflakes whining that the Democrats didn't stop them.
I'm going with the idea that Trump voters are actually fully human, and therefore are personally responsible for their actions.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
This is Microsoft. They don't care. They don't have to.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes