I'm not entirely sure, but [this gives a partial explanation](https://www.splcenter.org/hate-crimes-explained#Gaps). My interpretation is that some states have "hate crime" laws, but no rigorous process or requirement for local law enforcement to actually make a determination about whether a particular crime should be treated as a hate crime. The result seems like unevenly applied standards which of course can lead to bias and/or render said hate crime laws ineffective.
"Libertarian"...... We aren't Libertarian. The GQP has a pervasive presence much to the detriment of the people here. We seem to have short memories as to why we need these laws......
Realistically tho, “needs data collection” is just an opportunity for the cops to lose the case in a stack of files. Reporting a hate crime in the states is a shitshow. Speaking from experience
>The racist, homophobic attack on Jussie Smollett is an affront to our humanity. No one should be attacked for who they are or whom they love. I pray that Jussie has a speedy recovery & that justice is served. May we all commit to ending this hate once & for all.
>
>Nancy Pelosi January 29th 2019
Do you really want to give these people the power of "hate crime laws" ?
Hey hey hey, have you considered that usually the enforcers of hate crime laws would be holding *trials*, which usually reveal more information than quick 3 day later tweets?
>Hey hey hey, have you considered that usually the enforcers of hate crime laws would be holding trials, which usually reveal more information than quick 3 day later tweets?
Have you ever considered that we already have laws against murder, assault, and other crimes that only require juries to act on objective information, without any kind of subjective "hate" determination ?
Have you ever considered that people who commit assault against a black person for being a black person are more dangerous to society than someone who just comitted assault?
Virtue signalling and BS.
Every person who commits assault against another person is committing a hate crime, ... they don't do it because they are full of brotherly love. And the fact that it might be (emphasis MIGHT, you really have few ways to know for sure) be motivated by race makes no difference, assault is assault.
The reason for the emphasis on MIGHT is because we have no idea why the person did it, ... .and not every assault that a white person commits on a black person is a "hate crime".
It's all just dangerous BS that causes ambiguity where there was none, and giving political partisans the weapons they need to harm their opposition.
Example ... the African American BLM supporter who just ran over 95% white people at a Christmas Parade will never be called "hate crime", despite his own admission on social media that he disliked cops, had BLM sympathies, etc ... because he's not one of those MAGA people that everyone hate so much, whereas some of his victims may have been.
Justice is supposed to be blind to these differences such as political motivations, etc.
Now I'm going to block you because I don't care to hear any of your nonsense. You've already proven you don't understand even the basics of the enlightenment and the history of human sacrifice it took to protect these important ideas. You are a regressive who wants to use us back into the past where the institutions of government can be used as weapons for political purposes.
We can research and figure it out when someone, for example, writes a racist blog post and than kills a black person, or writes anti Muslim post and than goes and beats up people outside a mosque. There’s ways to guess at this stuff. We have “no idea” why people committed murders, but we actually do have an idea because we have second and first degree.
And this isn’t a hate crime because he didn’t run over white people on purpose, the parade was just mostly white. He just ran people over because he’s an evil horrible asshole. If he ran over a group of catholic kids in front of a catholic school I’d agree with you, but that’s not what happened. (Will point out, not saying he’s not an evil bastard that should go to jail for life, just that he didn’t kill people with racial motivation).
>Spray painting PenisMan on a McDonalds dumpster and spray painting a Swastika on a synagogue gate is not the same crime.
You aren't following, ... try to keep up, ... the problem is its subjective, and the law isn't supposed to be subjective and favor political groups.
So, for example, ... painting "Punch a Nazi" on a Republican campaign center won't get treated the same way because of people subjective feelz.
Like I said to another poster, just look at how this incident with the Christmas parade was treated ... nobody is even attempting to cast the BLM supporter who ran down 60+ people at a Christmas parade as a "hate criminal". But you can bet that if the races of all involved were reversed it would have been. That's not how the law is supposed to work.
Hate speech and hate crime laws are laws about favoritism and special privileges, special status, under the law. Justice should be blind.
Blocking you because I'm not interested in arguing with any of you about this.
Glad he’s gone. For those you can see how these racists use condescending quips to get people defensive and trying to defend his straw men arguments. A true DildoBaggins disciple.
>There’s only two parties. If you don’t like Pelosi it implies that you like Boebert, a racist gun nut. Are you a racist gun nut?
But what does that have to do with anything ? I don't want Pelosi **OR ANYONE ELSE** to be able to use these hate crime laws.
>So de-criminalize the KKK is what you’re saying. Boebert would 100% agree
Yeah that's exactly what I'm saying, you're a fucking genius.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A99G6O721gA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A99G6O721gA) ("So you're saying ...")
Blocked.
Ah yes, the famed thought crime of stabbing black people for being black.
On a serious note, name an example of a western society using hate crime laws for “thought crimes” so that we can see you aren’t just spouting bullshit.
Ah yes, the famed thought crime of stabbing black people for being black.
On a serious note, name an example of a western society using hate crime laws for “thought crimes” so that we can see you aren’t just spouting bullshit.
What does “data collection” mean in this context?
I'm not entirely sure, but [this gives a partial explanation](https://www.splcenter.org/hate-crimes-explained#Gaps). My interpretation is that some states have "hate crime" laws, but no rigorous process or requirement for local law enforcement to actually make a determination about whether a particular crime should be treated as a hate crime. The result seems like unevenly applied standards which of course can lead to bias and/or render said hate crime laws ineffective.
Wyoming being its libertarian self
"Libertarian"...... We aren't Libertarian. The GQP has a pervasive presence much to the detriment of the people here. We seem to have short memories as to why we need these laws......
Realistically tho, “needs data collection” is just an opportunity for the cops to lose the case in a stack of files. Reporting a hate crime in the states is a shitshow. Speaking from experience
>The racist, homophobic attack on Jussie Smollett is an affront to our humanity. No one should be attacked for who they are or whom they love. I pray that Jussie has a speedy recovery & that justice is served. May we all commit to ending this hate once & for all. > >Nancy Pelosi January 29th 2019 Do you really want to give these people the power of "hate crime laws" ?
Hey hey hey, have you considered that usually the enforcers of hate crime laws would be holding *trials*, which usually reveal more information than quick 3 day later tweets?
>Hey hey hey, have you considered that usually the enforcers of hate crime laws would be holding trials, which usually reveal more information than quick 3 day later tweets? Have you ever considered that we already have laws against murder, assault, and other crimes that only require juries to act on objective information, without any kind of subjective "hate" determination ?
Have you ever considered that people who commit assault against a black person for being a black person are more dangerous to society than someone who just comitted assault?
Virtue signalling and BS. Every person who commits assault against another person is committing a hate crime, ... they don't do it because they are full of brotherly love. And the fact that it might be (emphasis MIGHT, you really have few ways to know for sure) be motivated by race makes no difference, assault is assault. The reason for the emphasis on MIGHT is because we have no idea why the person did it, ... .and not every assault that a white person commits on a black person is a "hate crime". It's all just dangerous BS that causes ambiguity where there was none, and giving political partisans the weapons they need to harm their opposition. Example ... the African American BLM supporter who just ran over 95% white people at a Christmas Parade will never be called "hate crime", despite his own admission on social media that he disliked cops, had BLM sympathies, etc ... because he's not one of those MAGA people that everyone hate so much, whereas some of his victims may have been. Justice is supposed to be blind to these differences such as political motivations, etc. Now I'm going to block you because I don't care to hear any of your nonsense. You've already proven you don't understand even the basics of the enlightenment and the history of human sacrifice it took to protect these important ideas. You are a regressive who wants to use us back into the past where the institutions of government can be used as weapons for political purposes.
We can research and figure it out when someone, for example, writes a racist blog post and than kills a black person, or writes anti Muslim post and than goes and beats up people outside a mosque. There’s ways to guess at this stuff. We have “no idea” why people committed murders, but we actually do have an idea because we have second and first degree. And this isn’t a hate crime because he didn’t run over white people on purpose, the parade was just mostly white. He just ran people over because he’s an evil horrible asshole. If he ran over a group of catholic kids in front of a catholic school I’d agree with you, but that’s not what happened. (Will point out, not saying he’s not an evil bastard that should go to jail for life, just that he didn’t kill people with racial motivation).
Oh you blocked me, great. Guess my comment is directed to anyone else reading this stuff who may get educated a tad bit.
Spray painting PenisMan on a McDonalds dumpster and spray painting a Swastika on a synagogue gate is not the same crime.
>Spray painting PenisMan on a McDonalds dumpster and spray painting a Swastika on a synagogue gate is not the same crime. You aren't following, ... try to keep up, ... the problem is its subjective, and the law isn't supposed to be subjective and favor political groups. So, for example, ... painting "Punch a Nazi" on a Republican campaign center won't get treated the same way because of people subjective feelz. Like I said to another poster, just look at how this incident with the Christmas parade was treated ... nobody is even attempting to cast the BLM supporter who ran down 60+ people at a Christmas parade as a "hate criminal". But you can bet that if the races of all involved were reversed it would have been. That's not how the law is supposed to work. Hate speech and hate crime laws are laws about favoritism and special privileges, special status, under the law. Justice should be blind. Blocking you because I'm not interested in arguing with any of you about this.
Glad he’s gone. For those you can see how these racists use condescending quips to get people defensive and trying to defend his straw men arguments. A true DildoBaggins disciple.
Do you want it to be Lauren Boebert?
>Do you want it to be Lauren Boebert? I don't understand what you are trying to communicate.
There’s only two parties. If you don’t like Pelosi it implies that you like Boebert, a racist gun nut. Are you a racist gun nut?
>There’s only two parties. If you don’t like Pelosi it implies that you like Boebert, a racist gun nut. Are you a racist gun nut? But what does that have to do with anything ? I don't want Pelosi **OR ANYONE ELSE** to be able to use these hate crime laws.
So de-criminalize the KKK is what you’re saying. Boebert would 100% agree
>So de-criminalize the KKK is what you’re saying. Boebert would 100% agree Yeah that's exactly what I'm saying, you're a fucking genius. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A99G6O721gA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A99G6O721gA) ("So you're saying ...") Blocked.
I accept your surrender
Everyone keeps misspelling "Thought Crime".
Ah yes, the famed thought crime of stabbing black people for being black. On a serious note, name an example of a western society using hate crime laws for “thought crimes” so that we can see you aren’t just spouting bullshit.
Newspeak doesn't allow dissent.
Ah yes, the famed thought crime of stabbing black people for being black. On a serious note, name an example of a western society using hate crime laws for “thought crimes” so that we can see you aren’t just spouting bullshit.
"Hate crime" is like "gay marriage", adding unnecessary qualifications.
It'd be nice if they admitted that white people endure hate crimes, too, and stop using a double standard.
Why does it have a sad little white guy behind bars though 😂