Cleanup in Aisle Lunatic (h/t romad1)

[pfife]

1 minute ago, gehringer_2 said:

the problem with state of mind is evidentiary, and as this case shows, even though  you may have it in spades, you don't need it at all because there is more than enough to prosecute without it. Thus - legally superfluous.

If the goal is "to prosecute" then sure.  But if the goal is "to prosecute accurately based on the current federal law" then no, it's not legally superfluous, as you said it's there in spades and is not an evidentiary problem.  Dude wrote and published it himself.

[Motown Bombers]

[gehringer_2]

19 minutes ago, pfife said:

If the goal is "to prosecute" then sure.  But if the goal is "to prosecute accurately based on the current federal law" then no, it's not legally superfluous, as you said it's there in spades and is not an evidentiary problem.  Dude wrote and published it himself.

I don't care if whether the charge is 'accurate', that's fine. I was opining of 'hate crime' conceptually. Writing anything you want is not illegal. To me it's an odd bootstrap to say that something you did which was perfectly legal, basically now becomes part of a crime only retrospectively.  While it's true that there a certain aspect of that in conspiracy law, that can get questionable in my view as well. 

I guess in general I don't see the utility - or should I say attraction, of finding more ways to stack charges onto crimes that already are going to carry the maximum sanction the law is going to allow - whether that be life/no parole or a death sentence. Maybe it's a form of 'virtuous' virtue signalling, but I don't see that it adds any useful or needed function to the law or public safety. Practically speaking society gains no objective value in deterrence, enforcement or safety by charging a murderer with an additional crime for the reason he murdered.

Now if you are actually going to make the expression of hate illegal, which many countries do (e.g. Germany) then I think that is at least functional, we just don't agree with doing that in the US.

Edited May 18, 2022 by gehringer_2

[pfife]

5 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

but writing anything you want is not illegal. To me it's an odd bootstrap to say that something you did which was perfectly legal, basically now becomes part of a crime only retrospectively.  While it's true that there a certain aspect of that in conspiracy law, that can get questionable in my view as well. 

I guess in general I don't see the utility - or should I say attraction, of finding more ways to stack charges onto crimes that already are going to carry the maximum sanction the law is going to allow - whether that be life/no parole or a death sentence. Maybe it's a form of 'virtuous' virtue signalling, but I don't see that it adds any useful or needed function to the law or public safety. Practically speaking society gains no objective value in deterrence, enforcement or safety by charging a murderer with an additional crime for the reason he murdered.

If someone did a bunch of stuff that was legal at the time, but that stuff ended up being all of the planning done for a murder, would you have the same opinion?  Honestly you seem to be suggesting there should be no legal difference between 1st and 2nd etc degree murder as long as all of the little widgets of planning were legal when they were done.

The point of our laws is not only to prosecute and punish.  They also reflect what we as a culture and society will tolerate (Durkheim). Having a law against hate crimes tells people that our culture will not tolerate hate crimes and I'm 100% here for it.   

Edited May 18, 2022 by pfife

[gehringer_2]

5 minutes ago, pfife said:

The point of our laws is not only to prosecute and punish.  They also reflect what we as a culture and society will tolerate (Durkheim)

this is a matter of opinion

>Honestly you seem to be suggesting there should be no legal difference between 1st and 2nd etc degree murder as long as all of the little widgets of planning were legal when they were done.

Not at all, it's not that hard to see when a specific action is coordinated and contingent to a specific act/outcome - I bought a gun on Monday morning (legal) used it Monday afternoon ( = premeditation). 

Edited May 18, 2022 by gehringer_2

[pfife]

2 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

this is a matter of opinion

as is literally everything you've said on this matter.   I'm good with going with one of the most revered sociologists in history though.  Obviously there's examples where law doesn't reflect what we tolerate as a culture (ie tax law) but that's not the case here - as a culture, we do not tolerate hate crimes (well until about 6 years ago).

also I am interested in your answer to the hypothetical about legal planning and 1st/2nd degree murder because I'm having a really hard time understanding what differentiates these principles you're making

[pfife]

Furthermore, do hate crimes charges always only pile onto already ridiculously long sentences?   

While that might be what happens here with this nazi bitch in buffalo, would that be what happens when, say, a nazi bitch gets busted at EMU spray painting a swastika on the side of a building?  

[chasfh]

On 5/13/2022 at 2:34 PM, Motown Bombers said:

This thread is spot on. 

 

That was a pretty big thing among the righties in the old forum in the 10-15 year ago range.

[pfife]

17 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

this is a matter of opinion

>Honestly you seem to be suggesting there should be no legal difference between 1st and 2nd etc degree murder as long as all of the little widgets of planning were legal when they were done.

Not at all, it's not that hard to see when a specific action is coordinated and contingent to a specific act/outcome - I bought a gun on Monday morning (legal) used it Monday afternoon ( = premeditation). 

Likewise, it wasn't hard to see that this nazi bitch was doing a hate crime.  You already conceded that - you said the evidence of it was in spades.  But in one situation you're all good with it, in the other you're not.  Don't really get it.  You seem to be differentiating on "hard to prove" but that's not a differentiating factor in the comparison cases. 

Edited May 18, 2022 by pfife

[chasfh]

On 5/16/2022 at 7:56 AM, Mr.TaterSalad said:

This guy is a prime reason I call these people Christian fundamentalist. This is the America they want. Not mass shootings persay, but unlimited access to guns and weapons, no matter your mental state of mind.

"Not mass shootings, per se", says who?

[chasfh]

1 hour ago, gehringer_2 said:

the problem with state of mind is evidentiary, and as this case shows, even though  you may have it in spades, you don't need it at all because there is more than enough to prosecute without it. Thus - legally superfluous.

They're obviously not reading minds for hate crime prosecutions. Sometimes there is enough hard evidence to know exactly what the killer is thinking. Most of the time there's not. That's why hate crime cases are so hard to prosecute and win.

The Buffalo case should be a slam dunk.

[gehringer_2]

32 minutes ago, pfife said:

Likewise, it wasn't hard to see that this nazi bitch was doing a hate crime.  You already conceded that - you said the evidence of it was in spades.  But in one situation you're all good with it, in the other you're not.  Don't really get it.  You seem to be differentiating on "hard to prove" but that's not a differentiating factor in the comparison cases. 

Hard to prove is just the practical end, the base objection is that the addition of the hate specification is pointless. Your post about having the law "make a statement" is the core concept I take issue with.  You can't/won't punish the buffalo guy any more for this being a hate crime than for it being a multiple 1st degree murder. The 'hate' statue adds nothing functionally and just take the law into an area that is at odds with the US concept that you are responsible for what you do, and free the think anything you want. Now as I said, if you want to change that base assumption, which is not the assumption made in many places in the world, then I think you can make a straighter case for calling something a 'hate crime' 

To me the law does not have 'instructional' value, it has only deterrent and public safety/order value, that is why I don't see any value in adding a 'hate' specification to something is already illegal and fully punishable.

Edited May 18, 2022 by gehringer_2

[pfife]

What about the case of the nazi who spray paints a swastika on a building at EMU?  Nothing you said about the hate specification being pointless because of "fully punishable" would apply to that scenario.   That guy might get some community service or something for vandalism but clearly not unable to punish more.   

Furthermore, why should this be treated as mere vandalism when it was clearly more than that?  Because in a completely different case the person was already sentenced to 800 years?  Because in a completely different case it was too hard to prove?  Isn't charging w/ crimes that are provable, and not overcharging, exactly what a prosecutor is supposed to do?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding - are you merely against the hate crime stuff in the Buffalo case, or in all cases?   Many of your arguments seem to be based on the situation where the nazi is already pretty much going to be maxed out on punishment but that's not the only situation where hate crimes legislation applies, right?

Instructional value/make a statement were your words not mine.   I said laws reflect what we tolerate as a culture per Durkheim.  I did say it "tells" people that we as a culture do not tolerate, and many laws clearly do that.   I'm not sure exactly what you mean by an argument that seems to be that laws don't instruct the citizenry on what is tolerated - they clearly do that.

Edited May 18, 2022 by pfife

[gehringer_2]

9 minutes ago, pfife said:

What about the case of the nazi who spray paints a swastika on a building at EMU?

So what is the difference in what sanction the law allows for painting a swastika versus a gang tag? Besides, that is a different situation anyway. If you say "It is illegal to paint a swastika" you have made an ACT with a particular outcome (a swastika on a wall) illegal and are are punishing an a specific that can be separated from painting a gang tag-it's two different outcomes. When a person is dead, you can't separate anything in the character of the deadness based on the whether hate in the perp was personal or otherwise.

Edited May 18, 2022 by gehringer_2

[pfife]

1 minute ago, gehringer_2 said:

So what is the difference in what sanction the law allows for painting a swastika versus a gang tag?

I don't know.  

I'm assuming you're conceding my points since you literally just deleted them from the quote and didn't address them. 

[pfife]

9 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

So what is the difference in what sanction the law allows for painting a swastika versus a gang tag? Besides, that is a different situation anyway. If you say "It is illegal to paint a swastika" you have made an ACT with a particular outcome (a swastika on a wall) illegal and are are punishing an a specific that can be separated from painting a gang tag-it's two different outcomes. When a person is dead, you can't separate anything in the character of the deadness based on the whether hate in the perp was personal or otherwise.

sorry, for discussion sake, assume the hate crimes state of mind was there and provable in the scenario when the nazi spray painted the swastika.   Also assume the perp was not looking at life w/o parole already.  

What is the issue with tacking on more hate crimes punishment in that scenario?

Edited May 18, 2022 by pfife

[gehringer_2]

21 minutes ago, pfife said:

sorry, for discussion sake, assume the hate crimes state of mind was there and provable in the scenario when the nazi spray painted the swastika.   Also assume the perp was not looking at life w/o parole already.  

to clarify, I suppose the hate-crime terminology relates to many things that I would not put all in the same basket.  I can narrow it down a long way though. Does the 'hate' aspect make some difference in the act itself? So in the case of graffiti, 'Call Doris for a good time' vs a Swastica is a different result and even possibly a different set of social consequences. What I don't agree with is trying to call a 1st degree murder worse based on why the murderer committed it. The person that is dead is just as dead. It makes no difference to me why (again we are already stipulating 1st deg, not args over self defense for example) and in a sense devalues every other murder by singling certain ones out for special prosecution treatment. I don't agree with that, and as I said before, since it doesn't add to deterrence or public safety, I don't see any practical benefit to argue for either.

NB. I'm not trying to change your mind, just telling you what I think.

Edited May 18, 2022 by gehringer_2

[chasfh]

The J6 committee really is going to fizzle out into a big nothing, isn’t it?

Mob chaos FTW.

 

[romad1]

3 hours ago, chasfh said:

The J6 committee really is going to fizzle out into a big nothing, isn’t it?

Mob chaos FTW.

 

Events are dynamic.  This thing in June might well be a big deal.  The J6 committee has been setting it up like a festival.

 

[chasfh]

4 minutes ago, romad1 said:

Events are dynamic.  This thing in June might well be a big deal.  The J6 committee has been setting it up like a festival.

 

You may be right. OTOH, a lot of people put their hopes in the Mueller investigation, too. 

[Motown Bombers]

 

[pfife]

1 hour ago, chasfh said:

You may be right. OTOH, a lot of people put their hopes in the Mueller investigation, too. 

I had a lot of hopes for Mueller but I was fooled or foolish.   Idk why I thought Republicans appointed by the trump admin would faithfully investigate Trump.   

At least this is adversarial.

[pfife]

Gop cares about babies

28million.    Not billion 

[Tigerbomb13]

9 hours ago, pfife said:

Gop cares about babies

28million.    Not billion 

They are doing this so they can continue to blame Biden for the shortage. They don’t care about babies or their constituents. 

[pfife]

15 minutes ago, Tigerbomb13 said:

They are doing this so they can continue to blame Biden for the shortage. They don’t care about babies or their constituents. 

I think this is worse than indifference, it's cruel and inhumane.  Maybe most of them knew it was going to pass so were ok with voting against it IDK but I'm admittedly biased and refuse to give them the benefit of the doubt b/c I'm not a dumbass.

It's difficult for me to not consider this behavior in a very negative way.   IDK if anyone is present here to defend it but I'd be interested to hear legitimate reasons why this isn't completely terrible 

At least now it could still pass.  If they were the majority they would be able to actually inflict suffering here.   

Edited May 19, 2022 by pfife