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."
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
The only objective difference between them lies in an appeal to emotion.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
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.
For most crimes, the reason that you did a thing matters. The classic example is where you accidentally take the wrong laptop instead of deliberately taking someone else's laptop. In most jurisdictions you didn't commit a crime if you didn't intend to take someone else's laptop. Your mistake of fact (your belief that it was your laptop) negates an element of the crime: intent.
On the other hand, for murder, the whole "malice aforethought" or "premeditation" idea is really watered down. It can be premeditated murder even if it's a split-second decision, for example. Although in some jurisdictions you were traditionally excused a little bit if you caught the person in bed with your spouse before that happens. (I.e. voluntary manslaughter instead of murder.) (There are several types of homicide and the details vary a lot.)
There's also the point that there is definitely a significant moral divide between people who care about WHY someone did something harmful, and people who only care that it was done. Your position is absolutely valid, but there's plenty of room to disagree and there isn't a consensus about what the result should be. So we leave it to the legislature and courts, as a terrible way to decide the answer that's better than all of the other ways of deciding the answer. :)
Real lawyers write in C++
The only difference between murder and execution is the law.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
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.
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
Although in some jurisdictions you were traditionally excused a little bit if you caught the person in bed with your spouse before that happens.
Killing them instead of saying "WooHoo! I'm out! She's your problem now!"? That's fucked up.
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.
"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."
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.
Wrong. It's based on the fact that all are equal, not that some groups get extra protection, which distorts that concept.
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.
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.
Unless the molester was killed because of an immediate danger to the kid or in an uncontrollable bout of anger it is - for good reason - not legally different than killing someone randomly. Just because one have a good reason to hate someone doesn't make it right, legally or morally, to kill that someone.
Hate crimes and terrorism are one and the same thing. We just call it a "hate crime" if it's directed against a minority and "terrorism" if the majority is intended to receive the message as well. If it were up to me I'd reclassify both of them "crimes against liberty".
They're both the same thing, and terrorism is illegal because it's a crime against humanity. I would just like to see "hate crime" replaced with "terrorist act", because that's what it is. It's an attempt to attack that entire group through one person, as you say. I want it made clear that these people are terrorists, and I do not want this diminished or downplayed with some other name.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
This concept of "hate crime" violates the concept of the law being blind to the kind of person being accused.
It does nothing of the sort. It recognizes that a hate crime is an act of terrorism which is not only an attack on the person being accused, but also upon the entire class of people.
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?
It is, but sports fans are not a protected class. If they needed as much protection as people do on a racial basis, maybe they would be.
I also don't like these "with a gun" laws.
I agree with that. Full disclosure, I own guns and I've been around guns since I was little, but my reasoning on this subject is that I have a physics-based view of the universe. It doesn't much matter how you do things. The intent and the result are what are relevant. Your intent plus your actions are a guide to your future behavior. That's why intent is always relevant.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"