LogFAQs > #963968276

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

How would the potential victims know what factors the killer is using? If they can't identify that factor in the previous victims, or if they don't identify with that factor, then there is no implicit threat of "you're next" to victimize them in that way.

That applies to literally all crimes. Without proof there isn't a case, if they reveal their motive, you can act on it.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Now you're placing emphasis on the identity. We just agreed the identity was irrelevant.

It being irrelevant doesn't make it non-existant. What your nation is is irrelevant and yet throughout human history we have fought and banded together on arbitrary shared ideas of what a national identity is.

You don't need a good reason to do something for it to be a crime, quite the opposite.

adjl posted...

The specific identity is irrelevant. The fact that the crime is based on an identity - whatever that identity is - is what makes it a hate crime.

This one.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I thought you were opposed to victimizing them with the implicit threat of "you're next." If they don't realize they fit his definition of "black" then they won't be afraid. But now it sounds like you want them to be victimized that way.

You don't have to agree with someone's identifying criteria to be threatened by what they mean. If a guy said "I'm gonna kill all them there Africans" and kills a black American, they can reasonably assume he identifies black Americans as Africans and thus they should be afraid, even if they don't identify themselves as African.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Everyone has an identity. Every victim of a crime has an identity. If it doesn't matter what the identity is then why should it be extra illegal to victimize some identities and not others?

In law it is not, it doesn't make a distinction on which identities, just clarifies the general groups. If you feel it isn't enforced that way, it's up to you to sue since it's a bit illegal to not uphold the law.