ADVERTISEMENT

How will conservative press cover this?

cosmickid

Hall of Famer
Oct 23, 2009
12,549
7,785
113
Pretty obvious hate crime as suspect is member of a Neo-Nazi facebook group filled with openly racist postings.Victim is a member of the US Army,so normally his murder would be a major topic on Hannity,Rush etc.Will they refer to this attack as terrorism or a hate crime?

Army officer stabbed by college student...
 
Pretty obvious hate crime as suspect is member of a Neo-Nazi facebook group filled with openly racist postings.Victim is a member of the US Army,so normally his murder would be a major topic on Hannity,Rush etc.Will they refer to this attack as terrorism or a hate crime?

Army officer stabbed by college student...
How do you think it will be covered? Do you think there will some sympathy for the murdering piece of sh!t or something? What can you possibly be wondering about? Your question strikes me as extremely pointless and stupid, but you must have some reason to ask it. You must expect something.
 
I was going to post this also. But my concern is the growing number of hate groups in the US. We are so focused on ISIS and international terrorism, but the festering of these neo Nazi groups has been growing for the last decade or so in the US. We need to be investigating them too.
 
Pretty obvious hate crime as suspect is member of a Neo-Nazi facebook group filled with openly racist postings.Victim is a member of the US Army,so normally his murder would be a major topic on Hannity,Rush etc.Will they refer to this attack as terrorism or a hate crime?

Army officer stabbed by college student...

I do not see the point in "Hate crime". I would call it murder, try the ass hole, and then fry him.

I would need to see more to describe it as terrorism. Not enough info for that label for me, is the group he belongs to all talk or are they a known violent group to begin with? If he was like a known Klansman or Neo Nazi then I am ok with the domestic terrorism label.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stollcpa and Ladoga
I do not see the point in "Hate crime". I would call it murder, try the ass hole, and then fry him.

I would need to see more to describe it as terrorism. Not enough info for that label for me, is the group he belongs to all talk or are they a known violent group to begin with? If he was like a known Klansman or Neo Nazi then I am ok with the domestic terrorism label.

100% agree. The importance of this whole hate crime business as a separate provable crime is way overstated. It's purpose seems to be a recognition of the victim status of various kinds of groups and the legislation is the result of political pandering. In practice, this crime is difficult to prove.

In my view, the better way to handle bias motivated crimes is at the sentencing stage of the underlying crimes of violence. If the court finds hate or other bias-motivated factors in the specific crime, then the court takes that into consideration as a sentencing enhancement. This eliminates the necessity of the prosecution having to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the hate/bias.
 
100% agree. The importance of this whole hate crime business as a separate provable crime is way overstated. It's purpose seems to be a recognition of the victim status of various kinds of groups and the legislation is the result of political pandering. In practice, this crime is difficult to prove.

In my view, the better way to handle bias motivated crimes is at the sentencing stage of the underlying crimes of violence. If the court finds hate or other bias-motivated factors in the specific crime, then the court takes that into consideration as a sentencing enhancement. This eliminates the necessity of the prosecution having to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the hate/bias.
Agreed 100%. I've said this for years.
 
Agreed 100%. I've said this for years.
As I have said on here several times, I'm not even comfortable with using "hate crime" as a factor at sentencing. It's just too close to regulating thought for my taste. Now, I might be okay with using it at a parole hearing, for the express purpose of demonstrating a likeliness for recidivism, but that's about it, and it would need to be carefully done.

And, yes, I know that I've already lost this battle, as SCOTUS has already signed off on these types of laws. I'm just expressing a personal opinion on the matter, not a legal one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ladoga
How do you think it will be covered? Do you think there will some sympathy for the murdering piece of sh!t or something? What can you possibly be wondering about? Your question strikes me as extremely pointless and stupid, but you must have some reason to ask it. You must expect something.
Well, Dan Dakich, among other luminaries, has already outspokenly mocked the suggestion of a hate crime in response to this event (he brilliantly queried whether a different murder not motivated by race was a love crime). Lots of folks who instinctively respond in that way don't defend the killing, but they viscerally react to the notion of a hate crime. It appears on the surface that some of that visceral reaction among some commenters is a function of white racial resentment. So yes, valid or not, there is a worthy conversation to be had about this and why the notion of a hate crime bugs people so much (though there are absolutely non-'white racial resentment' rationales as well).
 
Well, Dan Dakich, among other luminaries, has already outspokenly mocked the suggestion of a hate crime in response to this event (he brilliantly queried whether a different murder not motivated by race was a love crime). Lots of folks who instinctively respond in that way don't defend the killing, but they viscerally react to the notion of a hate crime. It appears on the surface that some of that visceral reaction among some commenters is a function of white racial resentment. So yes, valid or not, there is a worthy conversation to be had about this and why the notion of a hate crime bugs people so much (though there are absolutely non-'white racial resentment' rationales as well).
I think the role of white racial resentment in this is easily explained: I think many people are under the mistaken impression that hate crime laws are only used against white perpetrators with non-white victims.
 
So yes, valid or not, there is a worthy conversation to be had about this and why the notion of a hate crime bugs people so much (though there are absolutely non-'white racial resentment' rationales as well).

Here is why it bugs me. Hate crimes really add nothing to the body criminal law since they are necessarily duplicative of other crimes of violence. They are what I have called "aesthetic" laws Those are laws that serve appearances instead of a fundamental purpose for the common good. Aesthetic laws proliferate local and municipal governments. They are not so prevalent at the national level.
 
How do you think it will be covered? Do you think there will some sympathy for the murdering piece of sh!t or something? What can you possibly be wondering about? Your question strikes me as extremely pointless and stupid, but you must have some reason to ask it. You must expect something.

What I think is that they will basically ignore it.This past week they focused on the bogus Seth Rich "story" and basically ignored what was happening in the real political world.

I no longer even check in with Rush,Hannity,Fox News and the like,so I could be wrong on this.But would you say they gave as much play to this story of actual domestic terrorism and a convicted assailant as they did chasing the fabricated Seth Rich looney tunes show last week? I don't honestly know (though I have my doubts)-so I'm asking?

Maybe you took issue with my use of "conservative",and I admit that's a pretty broad term.I probably should have said alt-right,because I think the folks I'm asking about fit blatantly into that camp.

I'm not talking about someone like George Will who is what I'd consider a non-partisan conservative.I'm talking about folks who while pushing the Seth Rich "theory" conveniently fail to ask themselves questions like "If it was an "assasination" why would someone shoot him in the back (instead of say,the HEAD) and then leave him alive and conscious for the first responders to find?".
 
Here is why it bugs me. Hate crimes really add nothing to the body criminal law since they are necessarily duplicative of other crimes of violence. They are what I have called "aesthetic" laws Those are laws that serve appearances instead of a fundamental purpose for the common good. Aesthetic laws proliferate local and municipal governments. They are not so prevalent at the national level.
I really don't have strong feelings about hate crime laws, but I do think the conversations had here and elsewhere don't give the concept a fair shake. Hate crimes add nothing? I don't know that to be the case. Probably depends on the law. Are we only talking about a new criminal offense or are we also talking about a push to impact sentencing considerations? Beyond that, of course we take into account what's in a person's head when they commit a crime. For example, self-defense is, at some level, a function of the accused's mental state. Same is true of a crime of passion. Those realities mean we might find the person guilty of a lesser offense or subject to a lighter penalty than a person who had a more premeditated approach.

I've not been mightily persuaded by what I've read in support of hate crime legislation, but I see the basis for some of it. Someone who commits a hate crime commits an act that sends a chill beyond the singular victim. Given our context as a nation, that matters. Also, it's not just a function of the act itself. Starting a fire in front of someone's house as an act of random vandalism is bad, but if it's done because of the race/gender/orientation/whatever of the person who lives there, that's clearly worse, in my opinion. The act is creating a broader swath of fear in the community AND I'd argue that a person who acts on the basis of hate of a particular group might be more inclined to act on those impulses (as compared to a 'mere' vandal or someone with a lesser motivation) and thus create a greater threat to society. I'd need to see some backing for that, but too many of the critics of hate crimes don't want to grapple with any of that. They dismiss the idea in the simplest of terms (and part but certainly not all of that is clearly, imo, driven by white racial resentment).
 
Well, Dan Dakich, among other luminaries, has already outspokenly mocked the suggestion of a hate crime in response to this event (he brilliantly queried whether a different murder not motivated by race was a love crime). Lots of folks who instinctively respond in that way don't defend the killing, but they viscerally react to the notion of a hate crime. It appears on the surface that some of that visceral reaction among some commenters is a function of white racial resentment. So yes, valid or not, there is a worthy conversation to be had about this and why the notion of a hate crime bugs people so much (though there are absolutely non-'white racial resentment' rationales as well).
Dan Dakich is a conservative and/or racist?
 
I really don't have strong feelings about hate crime laws, but I do think the conversations had here and elsewhere don't give the concept a fair shake. Hate crimes add nothing? I don't know that to be the case. Probably depends on the law. Are we only talking about a new criminal offense or are we also talking about a push to impact sentencing considerations? Beyond that, of course we take into account what's in a person's head when they commit a crime. For example, self-defense is, at some level, a function of the accused's mental state. Same is true of a crime of passion. Those realities mean we might find the person guilty of a lesser offense or subject to a lighter penalty than a person who had a more premeditated approach.

I've not been mightily persuaded by what I've read in support of hate crime legislation, but I see the basis for some of it. Someone who commits a hate crime commits an act that sends a chill beyond the singular victim. Given our context as a nation, that matters. Also, it's not just a function of the act itself. Starting a fire in front of someone's house as an act of random vandalism is bad, but if it's done because of the race/gender/orientation/whatever of the person who lives there, that's clearly worse, in my opinion. The act is creating a broader swath of fear in the community AND I'd argue that a person who acts on the basis of hate of a particular group might be more inclined to act on those impulses (as compared to a 'mere' vandal or someone with a lesser motivation) and thus create a greater threat to society. I'd need to see some backing for that, but too many of the critics of hate crimes don't want to grapple with any of that. They dismiss the idea in the simplest of terms (and part but certainly not all of that is clearly, imo, driven by white racial resentment).

I was thinking in terms of crimes against the person. Property crimes, like cross burning, raises different issues that I need to think about. That said, we have crimes like felony menacing, stalking, etc that would provide a sound way to prosecute those.
 
What I think is that they will basically ignore it.This past week they focused on the bogus Seth Rich "story" and basically ignored what was happening in the real political world.

I no longer even check in with Rush,Hannity,Fox News and the like,so I could be wrong on this.But would you say they gave as much play to this story of actual domestic terrorism and a convicted assailant as they did chasing the fabricated Seth Rich looney tunes show last week? I don't honestly know (though I have my doubts)-so I'm asking?

Maybe you took issue with my use of "conservative",and I admit that's a pretty broad term.I probably should have said alt-right,because I think the folks I'm asking about fit blatantly into that camp.

I'm not talking about someone like George Will who is what I'd consider a non-partisan conservative.I'm talking about folks who while pushing the Seth Rich "theory" conveniently fail to ask themselves questions like "If it was an "assasination" why would someone shoot him in the back (instead of say,the HEAD) and then leave him alive and conscious for the first responders to find?".
I'd have to look it up to know who Seth Rich is/was and what the story was. Never heard of it so don't know why it's relevant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joe_Hoopsier
As I have said on here several times, I'm not even comfortable with using "hate crime" as a factor at sentencing. It's just too close to regulating thought for my taste. Now, I might be okay with using it at a parole hearing, for the express purpose of demonstrating a likeliness for recidivism, but that's about it, and it would need to be carefully done.

And, yes, I know that I've already lost this battle, as SCOTUS has already signed off on these types of laws. I'm just expressing a personal opinion on the matter, not a legal one.
I agree with you not SCOTUS - we both lost. It is too close to the line of thought police or, if spoken word is evidence of "hate" in as case, encroaching on the 1st amendment.

I'm good with just trying the offender and giving her/him the statutory penalty.
 
I was thinking in terms of crimes against the person. Property crimes, like cross burning, raises different issues that I need to think about. That said, we have crimes like felony menacing, stalking, etc that would provide a sound way to prosecute those.

As I remember the original concept, the US government adopted hate crime legislation as a means to prosecute crimes under federal law that were perpetrated but not prosecuted by local officials under the states' crimes against person laws.

It might be that hate crimes have outlived this purpose . . . and/or morphed to fill other purposes. Whether those are valid in today's legal environment is something worth discussing, I suspect.
 
I really don't have strong feelings about hate crime laws, but I do think the conversations had here and elsewhere don't give the concept a fair shake. Hate crimes add nothing? I don't know that to be the case. Probably depends on the law. Are we only talking about a new criminal offense or are we also talking about a push to impact sentencing considerations? Beyond that, of course we take into account what's in a person's head when they commit a crime. For example, self-defense is, at some level, a function of the accused's mental state. Same is true of a crime of passion. Those realities mean we might find the person guilty of a lesser offense or subject to a lighter penalty than a person who had a more premeditated approach.

I've not been mightily persuaded by what I've read in support of hate crime legislation, but I see the basis for some of it. Someone who commits a hate crime commits an act that sends a chill beyond the singular victim. Given our context as a nation, that matters. Also, it's not just a function of the act itself. Starting a fire in front of someone's house as an act of random vandalism is bad, but if it's done because of the race/gender/orientation/whatever of the person who lives there, that's clearly worse, in my opinion. The act is creating a broader swath of fear in the community AND I'd argue that a person who acts on the basis of hate of a particular group might be more inclined to act on those impulses (as compared to a 'mere' vandal or someone with a lesser motivation) and thus create a greater threat to society. I'd need to see some backing for that, but too many of the critics of hate crimes don't want to grapple with any of that. They dismiss the idea in the simplest of terms (and part but certainly not all of that is clearly, imo, driven by white racial resentment).
That's a lot of good stuff, but you touch a lot of bases, so forgive me if this response is a little rambling.

First, on the point of already judging what's in someone's mind for criminal purposes, this is usually true*. However, traditionally, this has been limited to two specific questions. First, what is the level of mens rea? Is it intent, recklessness, negligence, etc.? Each crime* is defined by a combination of an act and a mental state. This is why the same act - say homicide - might be one of several different crimes - murder, manslaughter, or so on. The second question (which is actually related to the first) is, did the defendant have the mental capacity to even have a mens rea? This question gave rise to what is common referred to now as the insanity defense.

Second, as to both the idea that hate crimes are more than just crimes against individuals, and to the idea that the same act may be morally worse based on certain motivations, I agree. I can't deny that there are a lot of reasons - both moral and utilitarian - to think that it might be better to punish these types of crimes more.

Third, however, my particular discomfort with hate crime legislation simply can't be overcome by these considerations. I don't like the idea of punishing someone for what they believe, even if that belief is abhorrent, and I don't see anyway to separate a hate crime motivation from belief.
 
As I remember the original concept, the US government adopted hate crime legislation as a means to prosecute crimes under federal law that were perpetrated but not prosecuted by local officials under the states' crimes against person laws.

It might be that hate crimes have outlived this purpose . . . and/or morphed to fill other purposes. Whether those are valid in today's legal environment is something worth discussing, I suspect.
I believe you are correct, and I think that's a big difference between federal legislation and state legislation, where, if I understand correctly, the vast majority of states do treat hate crimes as a sentencing modifier, rather than a separate crime.
 
I don't like the idea of punishing someone for what they believe, even if that belief is abhorrent, and I don't see anyway to separate a hate crime motivation from belief.
I share your concern about punishing someone for their beliefs. Perhaps the right way to prosecute bias related crimes is as acts of terrorism intended to intimidate an entire community in addition to the individual victim.
 
I'd have to look it up to know who Seth Rich is/was and what the story was. Never heard of it so don't know why it's relevant.

Well the contrast between the way they pursued the Rich story last week and how I think they'll treat this current story is the whole basis of my thread.So that's why I consider it relevant.

None of this was intended as an attack on you or anyone on this board.If you truly don't remember who Seth Rich is, then it's highly unlikely you buy into the looney tunes theory that HRC had him murdered.For being the DNC contact with wikileaks-starting to ring a bell?
 
Speaking of the press, a reporter from Infowars just got WH press credentials. I'm betting on the National Enquirer to be next. Very professional.
 
Well the contrast between the way they pursued the Rich story last week and how I think they'll treat this current story is the whole basis of my thread.So that's why I consider it relevant.

None of this was intended as an attack on you or anyone on this board.If you truly don't remember who Seth Rich is, then it's highly unlikely you buy into the looney tunes theory that HRC had him murdered.For being the DNC contact with wikileaks-starting to ring a bell?
HRC had another person killed. ;)
 
As I remember the original concept, the US government adopted hate crime legislation as a means to prosecute crimes under federal law that were perpetrated but not prosecuted by local officials under the states' crimes against person laws.

It might be that hate crimes have outlived this purpose . . . and/or morphed to fill other purposes. Whether those are valid in today's legal environment is something worth discussing, I suspect.

I think that is a good point, and it probably is time to reconsider the laws. I think I largely oppose hate crimes as specific crimes, but then I consider the US is a signatory on several treaties on genocide. Genocide is a hate crime. Does this mean that we should withdraw from those treaties? Or are those crimes needed because the international community lacks good laws to prosecute mass murderers without them?
 
I think we should re-visit what constitutes "cruel and unusual" punishment.

Maybe wound this guy, then let wild pigs have him.
The use it as a test case, of course.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT