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

[GhostlyJoe]

To impose tougher penalties for a subset of crimes that cause a greater harm to society

Assaulting someone because he's a Pacific Islander is more harmful than assaulting someone because you don't like his shirt? That's a terrible premise for a piggyback legal statute. You've espoused an immeasurable standard. Hate crime laws are unnecessary and do nothing to prevent "greater harm to society." They need to be repealed.

Edit to reflect your edit: Hate crime laws by definition impose different penalties for the same crime.

 

[sangha]

i posted "meaning because he's dead, the hate crime vanished"

And the AG did not say that there was no hate crime. She said that no one will be charged with a hate crime (if the perp acted alone)

Reading...it's fundamental

 

[TobyOne]

Never mind. I see that plenty of others have made this obvious point.

Well, he's dead. So why would the DOJ investigate charges of a dead man?

 

[sangha]

Assaulting someone because he's a Pacific Islander is more harmful than assaulting someone because you don't like his shirt?

Correct

That's a terrible premise for a piggyback legal statute. You've espoused an immeasurable standard.

Crimes do not require scientific proof. The standard is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"

 

[Master PO]

And the AG did not say that there was no hate crime. She said that no one will be charged with a hate crime (if the perp acted alone)

Reading...it's fundamental

again you don't read well, i was addressing a poster not the AG .....:doh

here nice and slow for you.......does the act of hate disappear because the shooter is dead?

if you cant answer, then leave to those that can.

 

[sangha]

again you don't read well, i was addressing a poster not the AG .....:doh

And the poster you addressed made the same exact point that I'm making - the AG said nothing about whether there was a hate crime.

here nice and slow for you.......does the act of hate disappear because the shooter is dead?

Again, the AG said nothing about whether there was a hate crime

Reading...it's fundamental

if you cant answer, then leave to those that can.

I already answered your question

so if a white guy goes into BLACK club, guns black people down, and while shooting he can be heard yelling he hates blacks, then is killed by police later in that very club.........its not hate crime, because he's now dead?

meaning because he's dead, the hate crime vanished

No, it means no one will be charged with a hate crime

Which part of "No" did you not understand?

 

[Master PO]

And the poster you addressed made the same exact point that I'm making - the AG said nothing about whether there was a hate crime.



Again, the AG said nothing about whether there was a hate crime

Reading...it's fundamental



I already answered your question



Which part of "No" did you not understand?

lol....this is why i laugh at you.

if the shooter commented a hate crime while he was alive its a hate crime, it does not matter if he's dead and cant be charged, its still was am ACT of HATE.....which is the point of this exercise, which you failed to understand.

so the black shooter hated whites.

trying to absolve the hate he had because he now is dead is pretty ridiculous of you two.

 

[sangha]

lol....this is why i laugh at you.

if the shooter commented a hate crime while he was alive its a hate crime, it does not matter if he's dead and cant be charged, its still was am ACT of HATE.....which is the point of this exercise, which you failed to understand.

so the black shooter hated whites.

trying to absolve the hate he had because he now is dead is pretty ridiculous of you two.

This is why I keep telling you that reading is fundamental - No one has claimed that it was not a hate crime or tried to "absolve the hate"

If you read and comprehended what was written, you'd see that the AG merely said that the perp will not be charged with a hate crime - not because there was no hate crime but because we don't charge dead people with crimes

 

[Master PO]

This is why I keep telling you that reading is fundamental - No one has claimed that it was not a hate crime or tried to "absolve the hate"

If you read and comprehended what was written, you'd see that the AG merely said that the perp will not be charged with a hate crime - not because there was no hate crime but because we don't charge dead people with crimes

LOL:lol:, THIS SHOWS YOU DONT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

I RESPONDED TO GLEN WHO HAD RESPONDED TO THE OPENING POST.

I POSTED OR COMMENTED NOTHING FROM AG, ONLY THAT THE GLEN WAS TRYING TO ABSOLVE THE SHOOTER OF HATE BECAUSE HE WAS NOW DEAD, BECAUSE OF WHAT HE SAID OF THE OPENING POST.

GEEEZ! GUY, GET AGRIP!

 

[sangha]

LOL:lol:, THIS SHOWS YOU DONT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

I RESPONDED TO GLEN WHO HAD RESPONDED TO THE OPENING POST.

I POSTED OR COMMENTED NOTHING FROM AG, ONLY THAT THE GLEN WAS TRYING TO ABSOLVE THE SHOOTER OF HATE BECAUSE HE WAS NOW DEAD, BECAUSE OF WHAT HE SAID OF THE OPENING POST.

GEEEZ! GUY, GET AGRIP!

In his first post, Glen said NOTHING about "absolving the shooter of hate". He pointed out that NO ONE WAS ABSOLVING THE SHOOTER OF HATE

Reading...it's fundamental

 

[Master PO]

In his first post, Glen said NOTHING about "absolving the shooter of hate". He pointed out that NO ONE WAS ABSOLVING THE SHOOTER OF HATE

Reading...it's fundamental

:lamo THANKS FOR HANDING ME THIS JEWEL.

the opening poster was talking race in the criminal act that took place. which is what i focused on.

Glen,-- "hard to pursue hate crime charges when the suspect in the crime is freaking DEAD"

so i posted basically if a white person killed blacks, and states it as he does it and is later killed, does that mean the hate goes away?

my comment was no, does not matter if the person is dead his actions were of hate.

so a hate crime was committed by a black person, the hate crime and his actions do not disappear because he now dead!

reading and understanding what is going on can be your friend, if you spent more time, and stop looking to make a score.

 

[sangha]

:lamo THANKS FOR HANDING ME THIS JEWEL.

the opening poster was talking race in the criminal act that took place. which is what i focused on.

Glen,-- "hard to pursue hate crime charges when the suspect in the crime is freaking DEAD"

so i posted basically if a white person killed blacks, and states it as he does it and is later killed, does that mean the hate goes away?

Glen said nothing about whether there was a hate crime. He was clearly talking about "hate crime charges". It's right there in his sentence.

Here, I'll re-post the quote

"hard to pursue hate crime charges when the suspect in the crime is freaking DEAD"

Reading...it's fundamental

 

[Master PO]

Glen said nothing about whether there was a hate crime. He was clearly talking about "hate crime charges". It's right there in his sentence.

Here, I'll re-post the quote


Reading...it's fundamental

:lamo digging ourself deeper!



post #1 from Hatuey

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.

glen states, --"hard to pursue hate crime charges when the suspect in the crime is freaking DEAD"

so glen is saying, well you cant have a hate crime, because the guy is dead

i replied does not matter if he is dead or not, the act he commented was of hate...... a crime of hate

a black man displayed flat out hate for whites, and sought to kill them.

thanks for all you have done for me, making my point.

 

[sangha]

glen is saying, well you cant have a hate crime, because the guy is dead

Umm, Glen is not saying what he never said

Reading...it's fundamental

 

[Master PO]

Umm, Glen is not saying what he never said

Reading...it's fundamental

hahahaha, next time don't try for a quick score, take your time and read properly what points of conversation, others are arguing.

your AG comments were Gold, because i never even mentioned him only glen, and what his point was

 

[GhostlyJoe]

Correct



Crimes do not require scientific proof. The standard is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"

You can't even meet that standard, because you're criminalizing a state of mind.

 

[sangha]

hahahaha, next time don't try for a quick score, take your time and read properly what points of conversation, others are arguing.

your AG comments were Gold, because i never even mentioned him only glen, and what his point was

Glen never said anything about whether it was a hate crime or not

Reading....it's fundamental

 

[sangha]

You can't even meet that standard, because you're criminalizing a state of mind.

All crimes require a determination about the accused's state of mind.

Stop pretending that is something new

 

[GhostlyJoe]

All crimes require a determination about the accused's state of mind.

Stop pretending that is something new

Stop pretending that "hate" is a meaningful metric for societal harm. You're defending the punishment of thought crime without offering reasonable justification. Can you show that "hate crime" legislation makes society safer or eases interracial conflict?

 

[sangha]

Stop pretending that "hate" is a meaningful metric for societal harm.

Stop pretending I said that

You're defending the punishment of thought crime without offering reasonable justification.

No, I'm defending the punishment of actual crimes

Can you show that "hate crime" legislation makes society safer or eases interracial conflict?

Yes, I can

 

[SheWolf]

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.

Isn't there an actual precedent defining "hate crime" and it's based on national, origin, race, religion, and gender? I could be wrong but I don't think LGTB are currently protected, nor are public servants. I remember LGTB were fighting to be added to the hate crime legislation, but I don't recall it ever passing...

Otherwise, I think you have made really good points.

 

[Hatuey]

Isn't there an actual precedent defining "hate crime" and it's based on national, origin, race, religion, and gender? I could be wrong but I don't think LGTB are currently protected, nor are public servants. I remember LGTB were fighting to be added to the hate crime legislation, but I don't recall it ever passing...

Otherwise, I think you have made really good points.

His goal was to kill white public servants.

 

[SheWolf]

His goal was to kill white public servants.

Oh, I didn't realize that when I wrote my post. It seems like that falls under the federal guidelines. I was confused because of the Blues Lives Matter state statues currently being debated under the definition of hate crime.

Louisiana enacts 'Blue Lives Matter' law - CNN.com

 

[tres borrachos]

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.

The shooter is dead.

However.....

The AG should absolutely launch an extensive investigation. She can absolutely charge him posthumously. I think she should charge him with a hate crime, dead or not. We keep statistics on hate crimes, and if this was not a hate crime by definition, I don't know what is.

 

[a351]

The shooter is dead.

However.....

The AG should absolutely launch an extensive investigation.

Already in progress.

She can absolutely charge him posthumously. I think she should charge him with a hate crime, dead or not. We keep statistics on hate crimes, and if this was not a hate crime by definition, I don't know what is.

As he can obviously cannot stand trial, she would likely be prohibited from doing so in an official capacity.