Actually if you dig a little deeper, you'll find some information coming from the 13-year-olds mother which is quite interesting, and brings into question even more of the level of police work done eg leading questions, badgering, etc.
If you continue reading the article, you'll come across this quote:
"Motive is particularly important in prosecutions for homicide. First, murder is so drastic a crime that most people recoil from the thought of being able to do it; proof of motive explains why the accused did so desperate an act."
Additionally, if you review studies which compare conviction rates and sentencing vs motive, you'll see that motive plays a rather large impact in both. So to be clear, I'm not disputing the claim that something like "Motivation is irrelevant to criminal cases" is taught at major prestigious law schools across the US. What I am disputing is the veracity of that claim. I also dispute the morality of such a position although that's a different discussion.
You don't understand the difference between motive and intent
Thanks for the caring attitude, but I do understand the difference between motive and intent. I encourage you to expand yours. Here's some info for you:
Bias Intimidation laws are laws designed to escalate punishments based upon motive. Escalating punishments based upon motive is already how the justice system works and has been almost since it's inception. See http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2730083&cid=39381299 for more details.
So now under your definition things like premeditation constitute thought crime, but that isn't how thought crime is typically defined is it?. These laws can *only* escalate if a traditional law has been violated, and you can and should be punished more for why you did it. Otherwise we have no need for charged like murder vs manslaughter. Circumstance and motivation must be taken into account and your proposal leaves no room for such considerations. Only the simple minded could think such a system results in fairest possible outcome.
Excuse me, but where did I defend the length of the sentence? That's right I didn't, and if you could be bothered to read some of my comments on the topic you'd have known that. Had you done so you'd also see that in general I'm not a big fan of hate crime laws, but I can see their purpose to some extent.
Another thing I'm not a big of is ignoramuses who equate "hate-crime" laws as being equal to "hate-speech" laws. There is a very grave difference between the two and I encourage you to know the difference. Hate crime laws are not about censorship, a dangerous territory indeed. Hate speech laws are which is why I very much despise them.
Learn the definition of thought crime. The defendant wasn't convicted on what he thought. He was convicted for what he did. He's free to hold whatever opinion he wishes on homosexuals, but he's not free to break the law on behalf of them.
The question of whether "bias intimidation" should be be an extra punishment is somewhat unclear to me, but I mostly come down on the side that is shouldn't exist in that form. But that is a completely different premise than you originally forwarded isn't it? The legal definition of "bias intimidation" is excruciatingly straightforward[1], and your cries of free speech aren't applicable to this situation. The defendant was legally free to say whatever he wanted to the victim as he would anyone else. However he wasn't free to behave in a manner that would violate the law which pre-existed any bias intimidation law.
The most heinous criminal justice code of them all is part of "all that".
Further, I think it's fine to have criminal statues for bullying or intimidation, but adding "bias" to it is bullshit.
Now there is a good discussion. All these Ravi apologists are really quite sickening, but a meaningful exploration of the point you made would be valuable.
And what if the caught husband commits suicide? That's basically what this decision amounts to
You should read up on it before commenting. The conviction had *nothing* to do with the later suicide. The defendant wasn't charged on that matter, and had the victim not killed himself the result would likely have been the same.
Vague? That is only a statement which could be uttered by someone who didn't see the evidence presented and/or who wants to preserve his ability to intimidate those who lead a different lifestyle.
The charges were quite specific as was the evidence for convictions. These actions would not have conceivably happened if the victim had been heterosexual as revealed by the defendant's text messages.
Einstein believed in God as a concept, more along the lines of Taoism or pantheism (although he denied being either of these)
Perhaps because he really wasn't either of these? Yeah, that's right reading comprehension is not a skill of yours. People applying those religious labels to him are people trying to claim him as their own. He stated very clearly what he felt on the subject and needs no religious apologist to reinterpret it for us.
This is basically what agnosticism is
No this is what self-proclaimed "agnostics" should read to promote their understand of the English language:
Because Einstein was a deist as he proclaimed when he stated he believed in the god of Spinoza. Otherwise known as "Don't use Einstein to promote your theist views".
I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.
For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything "chosen" about them.
I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms.
I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it.
It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere.... Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.
ID is no less rational than aliens at Wright Pat, but neither should be fireable offenses.
If the believer's behavior is effecting his performance or the productivity of others it sure as hell should be a termination level offense. Assuming they asked the offending party to correct their behavior first.
Your problem is considering WLC as a person able to construct a valid point. He's got all the buzzwords down, but none of the concepts behind. However he wields his words like an expert ninja making you hear things that aren"t there. He is a master of the Gish Gallop.
I agree these high-end server class machines have their place and in some situations are a requirement. However functionality like KVM over IP isn't limited to simply IPMI. Anyways, if you need BIOS and power level access remotely on a regular basis I would go as far as saying perhaps you should reconsider the arrangement.
without redundant power supplies and premium boards that have been built and tested to rigorous specs
All that gets you is a huge pricetag and is only worthwhile in absolutely mission-critical no downtime environments. The components in that class of hardware still fail, IME with almost the same regularity as consumer level components(and statistically this observation is correct concerning consumer/enterprise HDDs). The one thing the server class hardware can provide is on-site, next day replacement. Consumer level NIC's can't handle sustained high throughput so that's the one thing which may need upgrading if performance is an issue.
The mindset of new sys admin is sometimes mind boggling. They will spend so much time and money to ensure a system is able to handle a power supply and NIC failure that it would simply be easier and cheaper to setup the service on white box hardware and make it HA.
we were spending at least 10-15 hours a week keeping those things up
I kind of find this hard to believe. If a unit was reliable in desktop life, it's almost universally reliable in server life. But if you put junk in your servers, they won't work well. I've seen companies pay big money for hardware that did this. Of course they got warranty support, but the point remains.
The crime is listed before that sentence. You would know that if you could be bothered to actually read before forming an opinion(or linking), but it seems knowledge isn't necessary for you to hold a strong opinion.
Since you seem somewhat ignorant on the area, let me provide another protip. "Violent crime" doesn't necessarily involve physical violence. I'd tell you to read up on it, but...
I see you still haven't learned reading comprehension. Let's try again:
"Hate crime" generally refers to criminal acts that are seen to have been motivated by bias against one or more of the types above, or of their derivatives.
Perhaps next time you should actually read the definition given in the article you link to:
hate crimes (also known as bias-motivated crimes) occur when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her perceived membership in a certain social group, usually defined by racial group, religion, sexual orientation, disability, class, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender, gender identity, social status or political affiliation.
"Hate crime" generally refers to criminal acts that are seen to have been motivated by bias against one or more of the types above, or of their derivatives. Incidents may involve physical assault, damage to property, bullying, harassment, verbal abuse or insults, or offensive graffiti or letters (hate mail).
The crime alleged to have occurred is the very definition of "hate crime".
No, the only reason it happened was that the victim was suspected of being a homosexual. So your hypothetical quandary simply isn't possible without that suspicion. That was the motivation, and that is both necessary and sufficient to constitute a hate crime considering the motivation was acted upon.
I didn't mean to imply that the message was different..
Let's be honest now, yes you were.
I was just providing a service for those reading along who aren't familiar with the subtleties of Shakespeare-era English.
Yes, an interpretation service. Free of charge if you don't count the surrender of your critical faculties.
But what should God have done that would have been more reliable than inspiring the authors of scripture to write in their own native languages?
"God" could have started off with an Immaculate Ipad powered by Siri which we could then use to make sure we are being servile enough. At the very least, "God" could have chosen to bring the revelation and human sacrifice to Chinese of that era where it would have stood a better chance of being recorded by a more literate and scientifically advanced society.
No, instead we are asked to believe early Iron age barbaric desert tribes received this Covenant from Yahweh because Yahweh found them to be "special" and "chosen". Curiously and conveniently, the special group of people were the only ones who happened to be worshiping Yahweh at the time when they were told this. "God" loved them so much he sent them a leader to guide them to settle in one of very few parts of the Middle East where there is no oil and very limited other natural resources.
Then the good stuff starts and humanity is bequeathed with knowledge of Hell and oodles of other types of fear-mongering. The human sacrifice, ritual cannibalism, and other copied pagan rituals are brought into Christianity. Let the fun begin. From there it gets crazier and crazier until end up with commercial religious products such "The Passion of the Christ", wiener of the gay Christian sado-masochistic niche market film of year award.
God has used this challenge to his authority as an opportunity to demonstrate the dangers of humanity's self-rule. It is the job of every Christian to prove Satan wrong by avoiding things that tick God off
Created sick and commanded to be well. The very essence of sadomasochism.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually if you dig a little deeper, you'll find some information coming from the 13-year-olds mother which is quite interesting, and brings into question even more of the level of police work done eg leading questions, badgering, etc.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/video-george-zimmerman-killing-trayvon-martin-grainy-proves-lawyer-article-1.1052713
Who is shooting an armless scared teen?
He shot a handicap? Or did you mean unarmed?
Telnet isn't, it only works "by accident" because the protocol is similar enough to plain text to work sometimes.
Bullshit. It was designed that way. And I can prove it, unlike your assertion.
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc15
If you continue reading the article, you'll come across this quote:
"Motive is particularly important in prosecutions for homicide. First, murder is so drastic a crime that most people recoil from the thought of being able to do it; proof of motive explains why the accused did so desperate an act."
Additionally, if you review studies which compare conviction rates and sentencing vs motive, you'll see that motive plays a rather large impact in both. So to be clear, I'm not disputing the claim that something like "Motivation is irrelevant to criminal cases" is taught at major prestigious law schools across the US. What I am disputing is the veracity of that claim. I also dispute the morality of such a position although that's a different discussion.
You don't understand the difference between motive and intent
Thanks for the caring attitude, but I do understand the difference between motive and intent. I encourage you to expand yours. Here's some info for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motive_(law)
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=921111
Bias Intimidation laws are laws designed to escalate punishments based upon motive. Escalating punishments based upon motive is already how the justice system works and has been almost since it's inception. See http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2730083&cid=39381299 for more details.
So now under your definition things like premeditation constitute thought crime, but that isn't how thought crime is typically defined is it?. These laws can *only* escalate if a traditional law has been violated, and you can and should be punished more for why you did it. Otherwise we have no need for charged like murder vs manslaughter. Circumstance and motivation must be taken into account and your proposal leaves no room for such considerations. Only the simple minded could think such a system results in fairest possible outcome.
And yet to you 10 years is a reasonable penalty
Excuse me, but where did I defend the length of the sentence? That's right I didn't, and if you could be bothered to read some of my comments on the topic you'd have known that. Had you done so you'd also see that in general I'm not a big fan of hate crime laws, but I can see their purpose to some extent.
Another thing I'm not a big of is ignoramuses who equate "hate-crime" laws as being equal to "hate-speech" laws. There is a very grave difference between the two and I encourage you to know the difference. Hate crime laws are not about censorship, a dangerous territory indeed. Hate speech laws are which is why I very much despise them.
Learn the definition of thought crime. The defendant wasn't convicted on what he thought. He was convicted for what he did. He's free to hold whatever opinion he wishes on homosexuals, but he's not free to break the law on behalf of them.
The question of whether "bias intimidation" should be be an extra punishment is somewhat unclear to me, but I mostly come down on the side that is shouldn't exist in that form. But that is a completely different premise than you originally forwarded isn't it? The legal definition of "bias intimidation" is excruciatingly straightforward[1], and your cries of free speech aren't applicable to this situation. The defendant was legally free to say whatever he wanted to the victim as he would anyone else. However he wasn't free to behave in a manner that would violate the law which pre-existed any bias intimidation law.
[1] http://abcnews.go.com/US/rutgers-juror-dharun-ravis-words-convcited/story?id=15922681#.T2OvVDWbDRY
An eye for an eye and all that.
The most heinous criminal justice code of them all is part of "all that".
Further, I think it's fine to have criminal statues for bullying or intimidation, but adding "bias" to it is bullshit.
Now there is a good discussion. All these Ravi apologists are really quite sickening, but a meaningful exploration of the point you made would be valuable.
And what if the caught husband commits suicide? That's basically what this decision amounts to
You should read up on it before commenting. The conviction had *nothing* to do with the later suicide. The defendant wasn't charged on that matter, and had the victim not killed himself the result would likely have been the same.
some vague charge of "bias intimidation."
Vague? That is only a statement which could be uttered by someone who didn't see the evidence presented and/or who wants to preserve his ability to intimidate those who lead a different lifestyle.
The charges were quite specific as was the evidence for convictions. These actions would not have conceivably happened if the victim had been heterosexual as revealed by the defendant's text messages.
Didn't Hitler claim he was doing "God's" work?
Einstein believed in God as a concept, more along the lines of Taoism or pantheism (although he denied being either of these)
Perhaps because he really wasn't either of these? Yeah, that's right reading comprehension is not a skill of yours. People applying those religious labels to him are people trying to claim him as their own. He stated very clearly what he felt on the subject and needs no religious apologist to reinterpret it for us.
This is basically what agnosticism is
No this is what self-proclaimed "agnostics" should read to promote their understand of the English language:
http://jhayeshappyheretic.blogspot.com/2001/06/there-is-no-such-thing-as-agnostic.html
Because Einstein was a deist as he proclaimed when he stated he believed in the god of Spinoza. Otherwise known as "Don't use Einstein to promote your theist views".
I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.
For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything "chosen" about them.
I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms.
I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it.
It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere.... Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.
ID is no less rational than aliens at Wright Pat, but neither should be fireable offenses.
If the believer's behavior is effecting his performance or the productivity of others it sure as hell should be a termination level offense. Assuming they asked the offending party to correct their behavior first.
Your problem is considering WLC as a person able to construct a valid point. He's got all the buzzwords down, but none of the concepts behind. However he wields his words like an expert ninja making you hear things that aren"t there. He is a master of the Gish Gallop.
You sound like a person who should subscribe to Dillon's mailing list.
Save yourself some money:
http://leaf.dragonflybsd.org/mailarchive/users/2011-05/msg00063.html
I agree these high-end server class machines have their place and in some situations are a requirement. However functionality like KVM over IP isn't limited to simply IPMI. Anyways, if you need BIOS and power level access remotely on a regular basis I would go as far as saying perhaps you should reconsider the arrangement.
without redundant power supplies and premium boards that have been built and tested to rigorous specs
All that gets you is a huge pricetag and is only worthwhile in absolutely mission-critical no downtime environments. The components in that class of hardware still fail, IME with almost the same regularity as consumer level components(and statistically this observation is correct concerning consumer/enterprise HDDs). The one thing the server class hardware can provide is on-site, next day replacement. Consumer level NIC's can't handle sustained high throughput so that's the one thing which may need upgrading if performance is an issue.
The mindset of new sys admin is sometimes mind boggling. They will spend so much time and money to ensure a system is able to handle a power supply and NIC failure that it would simply be easier and cheaper to setup the service on white box hardware and make it HA.
we were spending at least 10-15 hours a week keeping those things up
I kind of find this hard to believe. If a unit was reliable in desktop life, it's almost universally reliable in server life. But if you put junk in your servers, they won't work well. I've seen companies pay big money for hardware that did this. Of course they got warranty support, but the point remains.
The crime is listed before that sentence. You would know that if you could be bothered to actually read before forming an opinion(or linking), but it seems knowledge isn't necessary for you to hold a strong opinion.
Since you seem somewhat ignorant on the area, let me provide another protip. "Violent crime" doesn't necessarily involve physical violence. I'd tell you to read up on it, but ...
I see you still haven't learned reading comprehension. Let's try again:
"Hate crime" generally refers to criminal acts that are seen to have been motivated by bias against one or more of the types above, or of their derivatives.
Perhaps next time you should actually read the definition given in the article you link to:
hate crimes (also known as bias-motivated crimes) occur when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her perceived membership in a certain social group, usually defined by racial group, religion, sexual orientation, disability, class, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender, gender identity, social status or political affiliation.
"Hate crime" generally refers to criminal acts that are seen to have been motivated by bias against one or more of the types above, or of their derivatives. Incidents may involve physical assault, damage to property, bullying, harassment, verbal abuse or insults, or offensive graffiti or letters (hate mail).
The crime alleged to have occurred is the very definition of "hate crime".
It would be exactly the same thing.
No, the only reason it happened was that the victim was suspected of being a homosexual. So your hypothetical quandary simply isn't possible without that suspicion. That was the motivation, and that is both necessary and sufficient to constitute a hate crime considering the motivation was acted upon.
Why don't you let us know a verifiable $DEITY and we can test your assertion.
I didn't mean to imply that the message was different..
Let's be honest now, yes you were.
I was just providing a service for those reading along who aren't familiar with the subtleties of Shakespeare-era English.
Yes, an interpretation service. Free of charge if you don't count the surrender of your critical faculties.
But what should God have done that would have been more reliable than inspiring the authors of scripture to write in their own native languages?
"God" could have started off with an Immaculate Ipad powered by Siri which we could then use to make sure we are being servile enough. At the very least, "God" could have chosen to bring the revelation and human sacrifice to Chinese of that era where it would have stood a better chance of being recorded by a more literate and scientifically advanced society.
No, instead we are asked to believe early Iron age barbaric desert tribes received this Covenant from Yahweh because Yahweh found them to be "special" and "chosen". Curiously and conveniently, the special group of people were the only ones who happened to be worshiping Yahweh at the time when they were told this. "God" loved them so much he sent them a leader to guide them to settle in one of very few parts of the Middle East where there is no oil and very limited other natural resources.
Then the good stuff starts and humanity is bequeathed with knowledge of Hell and oodles of other types of fear-mongering. The human sacrifice, ritual cannibalism, and other copied pagan rituals are brought into Christianity. Let the fun begin. From there it gets crazier and crazier until end up with commercial religious products such "The Passion of the Christ", wiener of the gay Christian sado-masochistic niche market film of year award.
God has used this challenge to his authority as an opportunity to demonstrate the dangers of humanity's self-rule. It is the job of every Christian to prove Satan wrong by avoiding things that tick God off
Created sick and commanded to be well. The very essence of sadomasochism.