- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: South Carolina likely to remain one of only two states without hate crime laws
Posted on 4/29/26 at 1:49 pm to RoyalAir
Posted on 4/29/26 at 1:49 pm to RoyalAir
quote:Sure, murder is murder. As you say, motive matters. But murder based on your hate for that specific individual is different than murder based on that person's listed characteristic.
If my desire to kill Joe is because he's gay, then yes, the motive does matter, and would result in a first-degree murder charge. This makes sense.
But it shouldn't result in 1st degree murder *and* additional charges. That's stupid. Murder is still murder.
Hating a person for being an a-hole to you is different than hating a person for a listed characteristic. It's highly unlikely that no one else will be an a-hole to you like that person. On the other hand, it's highly likely that there are more people in the world with that person's listed characteristic.
Society does not want people killing others based on the other person's listed characteristic. Again, there are at least three different reasons:
First, hate crimes can act as a form of community terror that intimidates not only the individual victim but an entire group. By targeting protected characteristics (age, race, religion, sexual orientation), hate crimes cause greater societal damage and warrant enhanced punishment. Hate crimes send a message to entire communities that they are unsafe, unwelcome, or inferior.
Second, like burglary, hate crimes are more psychologically traumatic than similar non-bias crimes. The victim was selected based on a characteristic the victim cannot control. The victim will feel unsafe based on a characteristic the victim cannot control.
Third, and possibly most important, hate crimes can cause members of the victim's community to seek retribution. Not only against the perpetrator of the hate crime, but also against members of the perpetrator's community. This reason is similar to the reason we have laws that enhance punishment for gang violence.
Please consider these arguments.
Note: Murder is terrible. It's awful. Nothing good to say about it. I'm not going to defend it . . . however, when you kill a person for being an a-hole, that is idiosyncratic to you,
But murder arising out of an assailant choosing his victims based on a listed characteristic is worse. There are people other than the assailant who share hatreds for a group.
2
Posted on 4/29/26 at 2:01 pm to Chucktown_Badger
quote:Society want to deter all murder.
A question in response. Do we want to deter all murder, or just certain ones?
Nevertheless, society does not punish all murders the same. You may not like it, but you need to accept that fact.
These different types of murder typically get different punishments:
Second-degree murder (intentional homicide but premeditated
First-degree murder (premeditated murder)
Felony murder (homicide while committing a felony)
Mass murder (multiple homicides)
Cop murder
Society does not condone treating people differently based on listed characteristics. That's the law of the land.
Of course, society does not condone people choosing their victims based on listed characteristics.
Posted on 4/29/26 at 2:06 pm to Salviati
quote:
Hating a person for being an a-hole to you is different than hating a person for a listed characteristic. It's highly unlikely that no one else will be an a-hole to you like that person. On the other hand, it's highly likely that there are more people in the world with that person's listed characteristic.
So based on your logic, black on black crime and murder should be prosecuted and penalized more severely since it happens so much, right?
Also, you and your "list of magical more important characteristics"
quote:
But murder arising out of an assailant choosing his victims based on a listed characteristic is worse. There are people other than the assailant who share hatreds for a group.
So then extrapolating this, why are any and all other "groups" not included? For example, Bama fans...lots of people hate them. Rich white men...they are getting targeted all the time, they are also a group who is being targeted for who they are.
You contorting yourself into knots trying to justify the creation and application of these stupid laws is the exact reason they shouldn't exist at all.
This post was edited on 4/29/26 at 2:11 pm
Posted on 4/29/26 at 2:07 pm to Chucktown_Badger
quote:No. We're not agreed that those crimes should've been prosecuted as hate crimes.
No. We're not agreed that those crimes should've been prosecuted as hate crimes.
Again, the perpetrators took the train up to the wealthier north side neighborhoods. Lakeview, Lincoln Park, and Wrigleyville were targeted by a group of armed individuals, with several incidents occurring in quick succession.
Again, any prosecutor would have a difficult time convincing a jury of twelve people that the victims in the Lakeview, Lincoln Park, and Wrigleyville neighborhoods were targeted because of race and not because of wealth.quote:
Again, you leave out their specific targeting of women. So, intentionally obtuse it is
Again, the perpetrators took the train up to the wealthier north side neighborhoods. Lakeview, Lincoln Park, and Wrigleyville were targeted by a group of armed individuals, with several incidents occurring in quick succession.
Again, any prosecutor would have a difficult time convincing a jury of twelve people that the victims in the Lakeview, Lincoln Park, and Wrigleyville neighborhoods were targeted because of race/gender and not because of wealth.
Posted on 4/29/26 at 2:12 pm to Salviati
quote:
Again, the perpetrators took the train up to the wealthier north side neighborhoods. Lakeview, Lincoln Park, and Wrigleyville WOMEN were targeted by a group of armed individuals, with several incidents occurring in quick succession.
FIFY.
Posted on 4/29/26 at 2:14 pm to CleverUserName
quote:
Nailed it.
An anecdote is not a logical argument.
quote:Assuming the facts you posted are correct and assuming Mississippi has a hate crime statute, and assuming that facts you posted meet the elements of the hate crime statute, then the perpetrators should have been charged with a hate crime.
You wanna coherently articulate how this was a "mistake"?
quote:So easily and so often? You have provided ZERO evidence of that contention.
And surely you are of the opinion that laws apparently as vague as "hate crime" laws, where "mistakes" can be made soooo easily and soooo often, are unnecessary or even possibly downright unconstitutional.
Right?
You wanna coherently articulate how the Louisiana hate crime statute is "vague" and "possibly downright unconstitutional"?
Posted on 4/29/26 at 2:19 pm to Chucktown_Badger
quote:It's your quote. Here it is:quote:FIFY.
Again, the perpetrators took the train up to the wealthier north side neighborhoods. Lakeview, Lincoln Park, and Wrigleyville WOMEN were targeted by a group of armed individuals, with several incidents occurring in quick succession.
quote:LINK
Armed Robbery Spree: In late 2022, Lakeview, Lincoln Park, and Wrigleyville were targeted by a group of armed individuals, with several incidents occurring in quick succession.
Look at the post just above your post. I'll post it again:
quote:
Again, the perpetrators took the train up to the wealthier north side neighborhoods. Lakeview, Lincoln Park, and Wrigleyville were targeted by a group of armed individuals, with several incidents occurring in quick succession.
Again, any prosecutor would have a difficult time convincing a jury of twelve people that the victims in the Lakeview, Lincoln Park, and Wrigleyville neighborhoods were targeted because of race/gender and not because of wealth.
Posted on 4/29/26 at 2:23 pm to Salviati
The wording of the article does not change the literal facts of WHO was targeted.
Posted on 4/29/26 at 2:43 pm to Chucktown_Badger
quote:It does not matter WHO was targeted.
The wording of the article does not change the literal facts of WHO was targeted.
What matters is if the perpetrators targeted them for a listed characteristic.
I will post it again:
Were they targeting the women because they were white, female, or because they were wealthy?
If they targeted based on race, that qualifies as a hate crime in Louisiana.
If they targeted based on gender, that qualifies as a hate crime in Louisiana.
If they targeted based on wealth, that does not qualify as a hate crime.
The mere fact that the victims were women is irrelevant.
Posted on 4/29/26 at 3:13 pm to Salviati
quote:
Assuming the facts you posted are correct and assuming Mississippi has a hate crime statute, and assuming that facts you posted meet the elements of the hate crime statute, then the perpetrators should have been charged with a hate crime.
They are correct. And MS does.
And multiple witnesses gave evidence and there is even camera footage.
Yet.... no evidence. How about that.
Now.. if this was a crowd of Cleetus' that was mad about the attempted assassination Saturday night, and some guy outside a restaurant told a black couple that "it's not safe for black people in there.. they are mad about the assignation attempt.. and that 20 something Cleetus' followed a black couple to Waffle House, yelled racial slurs at them, and then beat one of them... how long would that be in the National news cycle? Would there be some "mistake" made and they not get charged?
quote:
So easily and so often? You have provided ZERO evidence of that contention.
Really? Per FBI statistics, black Americans... yes taking into account the population percentages, commit far more crimes against white Americans than white Americans do against black Americans.... yet.... white Americans are charged with hate crimes at a much higher rate.
For example.. per FBI statistics:
"Among single-bias hate crime incidents in 2019, there were 4,930 victims of race/ethnicity/ancestry motivated hate crime.
48.5 percent were victims of crimes motivated by offenders’ anti-Black or African American bias.
15.7 percent were victims of anti-White bias.
14.1 percent were victims of anti-Hispanic or Latino bias.
4.4 percent were victims of anti-Asian bias.
3.5 percent were victims of bias against a group of individuals in which more than one race was represented (anti-multiple races, group).
2.7 percent were victims of anti-American Indian or Alaska Native bias.
2.6 percent were victims of anti-Arab bias.
0.5 percent (26 individuals) were victims of anti-Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander bias.
8.0 percent were victims of anti-Other Race/Ethnicity/Ancestry bias."
Meanwhile... we take the per capita crime rate statistics from the FBI reports:
"General per capita arrest estimates (per 100,000 population) consistently illustrate the following proportions:
Black Americans: Have the highest per capita arrest rates, particularly for violent crimes. Black individuals represent approximately 13-14% of the U.S. population but account for a disproportionate share of total arrests.
White Americans: Have the lowest per capita arrest rates relative to their total population, though they make up the largest overall share of total arrests.
Hispanic/Latino Americans: Generally fall between white and Black per capita arrest rates, frequently aligning closely with their overall share of the U.S. population.
Asian Americans: Have the lowest per capita arrest rates of all major demographic groups in the U.S.. "
So what do you deduce from those figures?
quote:
You wanna coherently articulate how the Louisiana hate crime statute is "vague" and "possibly downright unconstitutional"?
If ANY law is applied unequally..... is that kosher with the Constitution?
This post was edited on 4/29/26 at 3:37 pm
Posted on 4/29/26 at 3:16 pm to Chucktown_Badger
Aren't most violent crimes, hate crimes? This shite has always been dumb.
Posted on 4/29/26 at 3:17 pm to Salviati
quote:
The victim will feel unsafe based on a characteristic the victim cannot control
OK, I could be sympathetic to this line of reasoning, were it consistently applied. But in practice, it isn't. In a hypothetical situation, Jamal kills Karen, because Jamal hates white women. She would fall into the category of protected class based on the reasons you listed.
But, and we know this to be true because of the real-world cases where this actually happens, Karen would not be afforded such designation. It would be a cut-n-dried murder case. No hate crime attached, even if it were to meet the threshold/arguments you previously offered. Her neighbors would feel unsafe. Her fellow white women would be concerned, and intimidated to go where Jamal and his associates congregate. But it wouldn't be a hate crime.
As a result of how this is applied in reality, I maintain that hate crime legislation is bullshite, and only serves to create protected, and moreover, unprotected classes.
Posted on 4/29/26 at 3:25 pm to Chucktown_Badger
quote:Please try to understand this simple statement that I have consistently repeated throughout this thread:
So based on your logic, black on black crime and murder should be prosecuted and penalized more severely since it happens so much, right?
The characteristics of the victim are not what matters. What matters is whether the perp selected the victim because of a listed characteristic.
quote:There are lots of people who want to get protected status for various groups.
So then extrapolating this, why are any and all other "groups" not included? For example, Bama fans...lots of people hate them.
quote:If they are getting targeted based on race, that qualifies as a hate crime in Louisiana.
Rich white men...they are getting targeted all the time, they are also a group who is being targeted for who they are.
If they are getting targeted based on gender, that qualifies as a hate crime in Louisiana.
If they are getting targeted based on wealth, that does not qualify as a hate crime.
quote:I don't need to justify the creation or the application of these laws. The majority of the listed characteristics have existed for over a century.
Also, you and your "list of magical more important characteristics"
You contorting yourself into knots trying to justify the creation and application of these stupid laws is the exact reason they shouldn't exist at all.
Society does not condone treating people differently based on the listed characteristics. That's been the law of the land for over a century.
So of course, society does not condone people choosing their victims based on listed characteristics. This is pretty elementary stuff.
Posted on 4/29/26 at 3:27 pm to Saint Alfonzo
quote:No. A crime is not a hate crime merely because the perpetrator hates the victim.
Aren't most violent crimes, hate crimes? This shite has always been dumb.
Posted on 4/29/26 at 3:33 pm to Salviati
quote:
No. A crime is not a hate crime merely because the perpetrator hates the victim.
A crime is a crime is a crime. Most violence is hateful, there shouldn't be a separate category based on random factors.
Posted on 4/29/26 at 3:34 pm to RoyalAir
quote:Link?
OK, I could be sympathetic to this line of reasoning, were it consistently applied. But in practice, it isn't.
quote:Agreed.
In a hypothetical situation, Jamal kills Karen, because Jamal hates white women. She would fall into the category of protected class based on the reasons you listed.
quote:Link?
But, and we know this to be true because of the real-world cases where this actually happens, Karen would not be afforded such designation. It would be a cut-n-dried murder case. No hate crime attached, even if it were to meet the threshold/arguments you previously offered.
quote:Link?
As a result of how this is applied in reality
I know you think you know what happens in the DA's office in reality. I hear what you're saying. But you have provided no evidence that what you think you know is actually true. It's just an assumption by you. Unless you're Hillar Moore, or someone close to the DA's office, you don't know.
Posted on 4/29/26 at 3:35 pm to Salviati
quote:
A crime is not a hate crime merely because the perpetrator hates the victim.
Thank you for yet another example of how ludicrous these laws are.
Posted on 4/29/26 at 3:44 pm to Salviati
quote:
OK, I could be sympathetic to this line of reasoning, were it consistently applied. But in practice, it isn't.
Link?
You're being intentionally obtuse again here. You know as well as everyone on here "hate" crimes are in no way applied consistently. You might do better in these conversations if you can admit that.
Posted on 4/29/26 at 3:46 pm to Saint Alfonzo
quote:In most common law jurisdictions, the punishment for the crime depends on the crime committed, and the crime committed is based on the intent:
A crime is a crime is a crime. Most violence is hateful, there shouldn't be a separate category based on random factors.
If you shoot and kill Joe because he shot at you first, that's probably self defense.
If you shoot and kill Joe because you thought the gun was empty, that's probably manslaughter.
If you shoot and kill Joe because he just fricked your wife, that's probable second-degree murder.
If you shoot and kill Joe because he's Jewish, that's probably murder and a hate crime.
If you shoot and kill Joe after a week of planning, that's probably first-degree murder.
If you shoot and kill Joe while committing a felony, that's probably felony murder.
In each situation, you shot Joe. Joe is dead. You killed him. The reason why you shot Joe is the issue. The reason why you shot Joe determines your punishment.
The motive is determines the crime which determines the punishment even if the action is still the same.
The motive for hate crime is important for at least three reasons:
First, hate crimes can act as a form of community terror that intimidates not only the individual victim but an entire group. By targeting protected characteristics (age, race, religion, sexual orientation), hate crimes cause greater societal damage and warrant enhanced punishment. Hate crimes send a message to entire communities that they are unsafe, unwelcome, or inferior.
Second, like burglary, hate crimes are more psychologically traumatic than similar non-bias crimes. The victim was selected based on a characteristic the victim cannot control. The victim will feel unsafe based on a characteristic the victim cannot control.
Third, and possibly most important, hate crimes can cause members of the victims community to seek retribution. Not only against the perpetrator of the hate crime, but also against members of the perpetrator's community. This reason is similar to the reason we have laws that enhance punishment for gang violence.
Posted on 4/29/26 at 3:51 pm to CleverUserName
quote:Please explain your statement.quote:Thank you for yet another example of how ludicrous these laws are.
A crime is not a hate crime merely because the perpetrator hates the victim.
I'll help you understand the issues:
Hate crimes do not punish hate. Perhaps the name "hate crime" is a misnomer, but they do not punish hate.
Perhaps the name causes cognitive dissonance for you. A crime is not a hate crime merely because the perpetrator hates the victim. A crime is a hate crime if the perpetrator selects the victim based on a listed characteristic of the victim.
Page 7 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News