• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Attorney general: Hate crime charge unlikely if Dallas shooter acted alone

Why not just denounce it and call it a hate crime and not waste money charging a dead person?
 
digsbe said:
Why not just denounce it and call it a hate crime and not waste money charging a dead person?
Click to expand...

Well, they've basically done that. They've made no secret that he hated and targeted white people, and preferably those in blue.

But what they are discussing in the OP is the CHARGE of hate crime, which has a legal procedure that goes along with it like proof of all charges do. It is a legal term, like "premeditated murder" is a legal term.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Well, they've basically done that. They've made no secret that he hated and targeted white people, and preferably those in blue.

But what they are discussing in the OP is the CHARGE of hate crime, which has a legal procedure that goes along with it like proof of all charges do. It is a legal term, like "premeditated murder" is a legal term.
Click to expand...

It seems stupid in my opinion. What do we gain from convicting a dead person? I don't see how it's a good use of resources.
 
apdst said:
Of course Lynch isn't going to charge anyone with a hate crime. That's a reserved charge for certain groups.
Click to expand...

Yes, charges of hate crimes are reserved for a special group - people who are alive
 
digsbe said:
It seems stupid in my opinion. What do we gain from convicting a dead person? I don't see how it's a good use of resources.
Click to expand...

Good damn question.

Sorry, I think I misinterpreted your prior post.
 
ecofarm said:
His motive was exclusively hate against whites and white police. He was in possession of and took part in hate propaganda. Undoubtedly a hate crime. Perhaps this will help some people understand hate crime legislation. This is basically terrorism and terrorism must be met with more severe action than common crime.
Click to expand...

What do you suggest? Do we kill the bastard again?
 
Hatuey said:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-s-atto...nlikely-if-shooter-acted-alone-200558816.html

This is where I draw the line. This was a hate crime and a terrorist attack against both whites and police officers. The intent was to kill as many white cops as possible. Lynch is simply wrong on this and she is being EXTREMELY hypocritical. Dylan Roof, from all we know, acted alone and he based his actions on a deeply rooted hatred for black people. Micah Xavier Johnson did the same and he should not be absolved from that simply because he is black.
Click to expand...

Whites are not a protected class. Understand basic US history.
 
sangha said:
What do you suggest? Do we kill the bastard again?
Click to expand...

I suggest that those generally claiming hate crimes to be thought crimes charged against only white hetero males take this opportunity to address their gross ignorance. They should embrace this opportunity to understand how hate crime legislation serves society by addressing crime akin to terrorism.
 
sangha said:
Yes, charges of hate crimes are reserved for a special group - people who are alive
Click to expand...

Do you ever run into stuff on here that is so off-the-chain crazy that you almost get the giggles as some kind of primordial psychological defence mechanism against the absurdity of it all?

This thread is doing that to me.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Do you ever run into stuff on here that is so off-the-chain crazy that you almost get the giggles as some kind of primordial psychological defence mechanism against the absurdity of it all?
Click to expand...

Several times a day.

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its' limits" - Albert Einstein
 
sangha said:
Several times a day.

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its' limits" - Albert Einstein
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's why I take breaks. Word to the wise.
 
My family is originally from India, where each and every politician is granted large groups of special security officers to protect them. You can easily identify a politician out in public, because they'll have a large group of security men accompanying them. In India we call this "VIP culture", because ordinary members of the public don't get this nice pampered treatment that politicians get.

I'm simply warning that if you declare members of the state to be a "specially protected class" of people - whether it's politicians, or even police officers - then it can create gap between the state and the public. It can create a "VIP culture".

I'm personally glad that people now have their own personal cameras in their cellphone devices. This allows any ordinary person to record what's happening to them, even in the case of misconduct by law enforcement officers. I think that lady in the Minnesota traffic stop shooting was very clear-headed and courageous to record what happened to her, and she was very right to post it on the internet. They deserved better than what happened to them.

When the Ruby Ridge incident happened, and "white supremacist" Randy Weaver was shot by FBI snipers, or after David Koresh were killed in Waco, Texas, I remember plenty of white rural people were angered at the FBI, the ATF, the US Marshal Service, etc, and were calling them "jackbooted thugs". This resentment was building in the lead-up to the Oklahoma City bombing, where Timothy McVeigh expressed a similar anger towards govt.

So my point in mentioning a Ruby Ridge or a Waco incident is to remind that it's not only black people who are capable of feeling targeted by the govt, and nursing anger over it. There are prominent incidents from history not that long ago, which demonstrate anger towards law enforcement from non-black people. When it's the other guy's ox being gored, you tend to care less about it, but when the ox being gored is closer to home, then you'll care more about it - that's human nature.

It's entirely possible to be concerned about police shootings of black people and not be a hate-monger, just as it's entirely possible to be concerned about police shootings of white rural people and not be a hate-monger.
 
Hatuey said:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-s-atto...nlikely-if-shooter-acted-alone-200558816.html



This is where I draw the line. This was a hate crime and a terrorist attack against both whites and police officers. The intent was to kill as many white cops as possible. Lynch is simply wrong on this and she is being EXTREMELY hypocritical. Dylan Roof, from all we know, acted alone and he based his actions on a deeply rooted hatred for black people. Micah Xavier Johnson did the same and he should not be absolved from that simply because he is black.
Click to expand...

I agree that it was a hate crime, but personally I am against the designation, murder is murder and we kill them for that here in Texas. Thing is both whites and blacks are denouncing these killings here in Dallas, as it should be.
 
I understand the perp is dead, so there is no one to try so far, and I'm not sure "hate crime" includes "occupations" such as police officer.

I blame BLM, and George Soros who funds them.

EDIT: the prep was killed by a bomb carrying robot. I like it.
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
Did you miss the part where a black terrorist group claimed responsibility and promised more attacks?
Click to expand...

And how do you know that particular "black terrorist group" isn't just some guy sitting at the computer in his underwear?

You don't. Not until the claim is verified, you don't. And why is that distinction important?

If you'll recall, we just spent several years, hundreds of billions of dollars, and thousands of American lives in Iraq because our leadership didn't think they had to verify the claims of the one who said that Iraq was in on 9/11 (they weren't), and the Bush Admin's oh-so-sure suspicions that Iraq was working on nuclear weapons (they weren't).

Now if we start believing that there's a black terrorist group that coordinated this, but it turns out to be a hoax, but we don't find out until long after we've torn the Fourth Amendment from the Bill of Rights in our determination to find that nonexistent black terrorist group? What happens? A heck of a lot more death and destruction on our streets...all of it because we've become skeeered of something that - like Iraq's nukes - didn't exist.

This time, let's VERIFY the claims first before we believe them, shall we?
 
Glen Contrarian said:
And how do you know that particular "black terrorist group" isn't just some guy sitting at the computer in his underwear?

You don't. Not until the claim is verified, you don't. And why is that distinction important?

If you'll recall, we just spent several years, hundreds of billions of dollars, and thousands of American lives in Iraq because our leadership didn't think they had to verify the claims of the one who said that Iraq was in on 9/11 (they weren't), and the Bush Admin's oh-so-sure suspicions that Iraq was working on nuclear weapons (they weren't).

Now if we start believing that there's a black terrorist group that coordinated this, but it turns out to be a hoax, but we don't find out until long after we've torn the Fourth Amendment from the Bill of Rights in our determination to find that nonexistent black terrorist group? What happens? A heck of a lot more death and destruction on our streets...all of it because we've become skeeered of something that - like Iraq's nukes - didn't exist.

This time, let's VERIFY the claims first before we believe them, shall we?
Click to expand...

What do ya say they go find the hell out?
 
sangha said:
Yes, charges of hate crimes are reserved for a special group - people who are alive
Click to expand...

Let me guess, our dud of an AG is going to ignore this?
 
apdst said:
No, whatever live people are connected.
Click to expand...

What if the guy's a lone wolf? Lynch already said unless there are accomplices, the dead shooter is unlikely to be charged with a hate crime.

Anyway, Black Lives Matter needs to be shown the mirror, so that they can reflect on any rhetoric from them which could inflame people to kill innocent police officers, as happened today.
 
sanman said:
What if the guy's a lone wolf? Lynch already said unless there are accomplices, the dead shooter is unlikely to be charged with a hate crime.

Anyway, Black Lives Matter needs to be shown the mirror, so that they can reflect on any rhetoric from them which could inflame people to kill innocent police officers, as happened today.
Click to expand...

BLM is untouchable. They're being held to a different stsndard, as usual.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
I strongly encourage them to do so...but that's not the point. The POINT is that YOU had already ASSUMED that there was indeed a black terrorist group that had claimed responsibility.

Gotta watch those assumptions, guy.
Click to expand...

The shooter was resurrected to post on FB?
 
apdst said:
BLM is untouchable. They're being held to a different stsndard, as usual.
Click to expand...

I, for one, welcome our new overlords.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom