Poll of the Day > 16 year girl caught planning to commit a hate crime in North Georgia

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://abcnews.go.com/US/16-year-girl-planned-attack-predominately-black-church/story?id=67172037

Now might be the time to make some hate crime laws Georgia.

---

Nah
---

Ban knives. People can use them to commit violence. It's the knives' fault!
---

afrodude77 posted...

Now might be the time to make some hate crime laws Georgia.

....what? The fact that murder is already illegal did nothing to deter her, yet you think hate crime laws will actually do anything?
---

Aaantlion posted...

....what? The fact that murder is already illegal did nothing to deter her, yet you think hate crime laws will actually do anything?

No shit but here she is planning to commit a hate crime and won't be charged for it but at least she's getting hit with attempted murder.

---

afrodude77 posted...

No shit but here she is planning to commit a hate crime and won't be charged for it

Im pretty sure hate is already part of the crime. Hate defines, or helps define, intent and intent is required to convict anyone of a serious crime. Without hate murder would be manslaughter, and so forth.

What youre actually advocating for, and what hate crime laws enforce, is race based sentencing. I.E. a white man hurting a black man gets a harsher sentence than a black man hurting that same black victim. There is no logic to that type of sentencing and it would be unconstitutional to attempt to enforce.

---

aDirtyShisno posted...

Without hate murder would be manslaughter, and so forth.

No

---

Without hate murder would be manslaughter, and so forth.

That's not even remotely accurate
---

aDirtyShisno posted...

Im pretty sure hate is already part of the crime. Hate defines, or helps define, intent and intent is required to convict anyone of a serious crime. Without hate murder would be manslaughter, and so forth.

What youre actually advocating for, and what hate crime laws enforce, is race based sentencing. I.E. a white man hurting a black man gets a harsher sentence than a black man hurting that same black victim. There is no logic to that type of sentencing and it would be unconstitutional to attempt to enforce.

I mean it's one thing for a white man to mug a black man that's just robbery. But planning to attack a black Church with knives when the the would be perpetrator already idolizes someone like Dylan roof seems like a hate crime in my book. It seems unlikely that the white man would get a harsher sentence than a black man in your scenario imo

---

EvilMegas posted...

No

Yes.

---

papercup posted...

That's not even remotely accurate

Thats a very insightful correction. I shall consider your opinion thoroughly and analyze your argument to its fullest extent.

---

What they're saying, is that "hate crime" is a nonsense term and doesn't need to exist.
---

aDirtyShisno posted...

Without hate murder would be manslaughter, and so forth.

"Manslaughter is an unlawful killing that doesn't involve malice aforethought."

You could hate someone you manslaughter'ed and you can murder someone you don't hate.
---

afrodude77 posted...

I mean it's one thing for a white man to mug a black man that's just robbery. But planning to attack a black Church with knives when the the would be perpetrator already idolizes someone like Dylan roof seems like a hate crime in my book.

Its attempted murder, or conspiracy to commit murder, or something thereabout, but its not attempted hateful murder or some such. There is no such a classification. Instead this is literally attempted murder: same race vs attempted murder: different race. Its race based sentencing. One is considered to have a higher degree of value worth a harsher sentence and yet both are the same crime.

---

SunWuKung420 posted...

"Manslaughter is an unlawful killing that doesn't involve malice aforethought."

You could hate someone you manslaughter'ed and you can murder someone you don't hate.

Doesnt involve malice literally means without malice. Malice is almost synonymous with hatred. This roughly translates to doesnt involve hateful intent.

Youre also inverting what I said to try and prove your own point. I said without hatred, i.e. malice, a murder becomes manslaughter. The opposite is not guaranteed to be true and I never said it was. That would be like saying a woman is human, so a human is woman. Men exist too.

---

aDirtyShisno posted...

What youre actually advocating for, and what hate crime laws enforce, is race based sentencing. I.E. a white man hurting a black man gets a harsher sentence than a black man hurting that same black victim. There is no logic to that type of sentencing and it would be unconstitutional to attempt to enforce.

Hate crime also encompasses motives related to sexuality and or gender of the victim. It does not really alter the crime, just further vilifies the motive.

Or it might just be modern society trying to distance itself further from individuals holding ideas that were more common perhaps only a few generations ago.
---

dragon504 posted...

What they're saying, is that "hate crime" is a nonsense term and doesn't need to exist.

This.

I understand the logic of "hate crime", and I'd argue there are definitely cases where it's a valuable distinction (ie, spraypainting swastikas on tombstones in a Jewish cemetery probably should be punished more severely than a normal generic "grafitti/vandalism" offense would justify).

But at a certain point, it doesn't really matter why you're doing something. Killing someone because they're black/gay/Jewish/etc arguably isn't all that much worse than killing someone because you find them annoying/because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time/because it's Tuesday, and there really isn't a need for an entirely new classification of crime.

If you go out of your way to kill someone because of their minority status, then that's just premeditated murder, and it's already the most severe type of murder we have punishment for. We don't really need extra classifications that only muddy the waters even more and fall into the trap of subjectivity (if a white guy kills a black guy, did he kill him solely because he was black, or would he have killed him even if he was white? That's a REALLY hard case to honestly argue in court).
---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

But at a certain point, it doesn't really matter why you're doing something. Killing someone because they're black/gay/Jewish/etc arguably isn't all that much worse than killing someone because you find them annoying/because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time/because it's Tuesday, and there really isn't a need for an entirely new classification of crime.

Sometimes things just need to be codified into law to explicitly make clear "do not do this", for certain people to understand it. (It is a balance that also includes politicians trying to look good and sometimes a genuine need to make those examples in the law, because the target groups legally had their status changed)
---

aDirtyShisno posted...

Instead this is literally attempted murder: same race vs attempted murder: different race. Its race based sentencing.

There's a distinct difference between "X murdered Y, who is black" and "X murdered Y because Y is black." Namely, in the former case, you've just got somebody with violent tendencies who is dangerous because of that. In the latter case, you've got somebody who would commit genocide if they had the opportunity, which is a whole lot more dangerous.
---

aDirtyShisno posted...

Thats a very insightful correction. I shall consider your opinion thoroughly and analyze your argument to its fullest extent.

It's not an opinion, you are just factually incorrect. It's not our job to teach you stuff you learn in high school.

---

Also just wanna say, you guys are weird for not wanting harder penalties for people that try to or commit hate based crimes. This doesn't affect you either way why argue against it?

---

EvilMegas posted...

It's not an opinion, you are just factually incorrect. It's not our job to teach you stuff you learn in high school.

Like how you obviously learned to present your argument in debate class by saying lol nope and won every time.

---

EvilMegas posted...

Also just wanna say, you guys are weird for not wanting harder penalties for people that try to or commit hate based crimes. This doesn't affect you either way why argue against it?

Yeah it ought to seem weird to Georgia that only three other states agree with it about having no hate crime laws.

---

EvilMegas posted...

Also just wanna say, you guys are weird for not wanting harder penalties for people that try to or commit hate based crimes. This doesn't affect you either way why argue against it?

Slippery slopes and all that jazz. But the slopes dont affect you so why worry right...? Until they do affect you.

---

afrodude77 posted...

Yeah it ought to seem weird to Georgia that only three other states agree with it about having no hate crime laws.

It also ought to have seemed weird to the Southern States when Vermont was the first State to outlaw slavery...

---

aDirtyShisno posted...

Slippery slopes and all that jazz. But the slopes dont affect you so why worry right...? Until they do affect you.

Oh okay. You're just not even trying to make sense.


---

I'm from GA, y'all.

---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

This.

I understand the logic of "hate crime", and I'd argue there are definitely cases where it's a valuable distinction (ie, spraypainting swastikas on tombstones in a Jewish cemetery probably should be punished more severely than a normal generic "grafitti/vandalism" offense would justify).

But at a certain point, it doesn't really matter why you're doing something. Killing someone because they're black/gay/Jewish/etc arguably isn't all that much worse than killing someone because you find them annoying/because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time/because it's Tuesday, and there really isn't a need for an entirely new classification of crime.

If you go out of your way to kill someone because of their minority status, then that's just premeditated murder, and it's already the most severe type of murder we have punishment for. We don't really need extra classifications that only muddy the waters even more and fall into the trap of subjectivity (if a white guy kills a black guy, did he kill him solely because he was black, or would he have killed him even if he was white? That's a REALLY hard case to honestly argue in court).

Pretty sure in this cause though it was because the church was frequented by black people. I mean a white meth head murdering a black dude for his wallet wouldn't really be a hate crime imo just typical robbery and murder.

---

EvilMegas posted...

Oh okay. You're just not even trying to make sense.

And youre still not even trying to make an actual argument

---

You can perform a premeditated, malice attack without it being hateful. I'm not sure why people don't get that. Some criminals really just view that has an everyday thing. You plan a crime and you hurt/kill people not because you hate them, just because they are there.
---

Nichtcrawler X posted...

Sometimes things just need to be codified into law to explicitly make clear "do not do this", for certain people to understand it.

If murder being against the law isn't going to stop someone from doing it, telling them they're especially naughty for being a bigot as well probably isn't going to phase them too much.

Again, this is why hate crime laws tend to make sense at lower levels of severity (where extra punishment for bigotry might help discourage minor crimes like property destruction or harassment), but once you shoot past assault and into murder, how racist you may or may not be sort of takes a backseat to, hey, maybe you shouldn't be killing people for any reason.



afrodude77 posted...

Pretty sure in this cause though it was because the church was frequented by black people. I mean a white meth head murdering a black dude for his wallet wouldn't really be a hate crime imo just typical robbery and murder.

But is someone planning a mass murder spree at a black church somehow inherently so much worse than a white person planning a mass murder spree at a white church?

Or could we possibly agree that planning a mass murder spree at a church is pretty fucked up no matter who is inside?

It's not like the people are going to be any less dead if you murdered them for no obvious reason, whereas racism makes them extra dead.
---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

But is someone planning a mass murder spree at a black church somehow inherently so much worse than a white person planning a mass murder spree at a white church?

Both could be hate crimes. Religious beliefs are included in the list. (also, racial motivations do not require the perpetrator to be a different race than the victim(s))
---

Ummm hate to break it to ya my dude but there are already laws against hate crimes and have been for years. Ffs, all this info at our fingertips and people just get dumber and dumber by the day

ParanoidObsessive posted...

But is someone planning a mass murder spree at a black church somehow inherently so much worse than a white person planning a mass murder spree at a white church?

Clearly one mass murderer is a better person and deserves a lesser sentence!

The hate crime is especially good for ratings I suppose. Otherwise it's just regular dumb fucks murdering each other. Change channel.

SunWuKung420 posted...

Ban knives. People can use them to commit violence. It's the knives' fault!

But how.. How will I cut me' breakfast buttermuffins?!
---

https://youtu.be/MxSQi6zxsb8
---

ParanoidObsessive posted...

But is someone planning a mass murder spree at a black church somehow inherently so much worse than a white person planning a mass murder spree at a white church?

Or could we possibly agree that planning a mass murder spree at a church is pretty f***ed up no matter who is inside?

It could easily be a hate crime either way, though. As mentioned, being racially motivated doesn't require the perpetrator to be a different race from the victims, and there can easily be unifying factors other than race in those scenarios (such as the whole church thing).

ParanoidObsessive posted...

It's not like the people are going to be any less dead if you murdered them for no obvious reason, whereas racism makes them extra dead.

As I mentioned earlier, the hate crime aspect is less relevant to the crime at hand and more relevant to determining how much of a threat they are to society (which should always be the primary consideration in sentencing somebody). Somebody shoots up a church because they were bullied by some of the congregants, they're going to have fewer potential future targets than somebody who shoots up the church because it was full of a certain type of people. The former is emotionally unstable, the latter is genocidal, meaning the latter is more dangerous.

Of course, the distinction becomes pretty moot when talking about actual murder, since premeditated murder carries an automatic life sentence in most cases, with the murderer only getting out earlier than that if there's reason to believe they're no longer a threat. That's not really going to change between regular murder and hate murder. In this case, however, her plan was interrupted, so her genocidal inclinations warrant a longer sentence than more personal motivations would, for the sake of public safety. At least, that would be valid logic if being in prison didn't stand a good chance of radicalizing her further by exposing her to like-minded individuals, but that's another problem.

https://i.imgur.com/Af0yWqH.jpg
---

_AdjI_ posted...

As I mentioned earlier, the hate crime aspect is less relevant to the crime at hand and more relevant to determining how much of a threat they are to society (which should always be the primary consideration in sentencing somebody). Somebody shoots up a church because they were bullied by some of the congregants, they're going to have fewer potential future targets than somebody who shoots up the church because it was full of a certain type of people. The former is emotionally unstable, the latter is genocidal, meaning the latter is more dangerous.

Then you can remove the narrow definition specifying a hate crime and just punish people who act in this kind of way. The issue isn't targeting a protected class, it's the mindset of murdering a collective like it's a single, inhuman entity.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

_AdjI_ posted...

As I mentioned earlier, the hate crime aspect is less relevant to the crime at hand and more relevant to determining how much of a threat they are to society (which should always be the primary consideration in sentencing somebody). Somebody shoots up a church because they were bullied by some of the congregants, they're going to have fewer potential future targets than somebody who shoots up the church because it was full of a certain type of people. The former is emotionally unstable, the latter is genocidal, meaning the latter is more dangerous.

Then you can remove the narrow definition specifying a hate crime and just punish people who act in this kind of way. The issue isn't targeting a protected class, it's the mindset of murdering a collective like it's a single, inhuman entity.

I'd be fine with defining hate crime like that. As you say, it's not an issue of whether or not the target is a protected class (although the concept is usually applied to protect a class that an appreciable number of people want to target), it's a matter of killing on an impersonal basis that implies they have many more potential targets.

OhhhJa posted...

Ummm hate to break it to ya my dude but there are already laws against hate crimes and have been for years. Ffs, all this info at our fingertips and people just get dumber and dumber by the day

If you're referring to me I'm aware but the state of Georgia is one of four states without hate crime laws but some good points were raised in this thread I suppose murder is murder no matter how you slice it

---