yes, either, both, maybe state in there as well.


If there was a state-wide, or national, group whose agenda was expressed in these crimes, I think it would be a legitimate area of inquiry for federal law enforcement.


First they'd clear off all the stupid, rhetorical questions.....

And to be clear, this is an anwer to a generalized question, not to AMLFella's contrived hypothetical.

Well, it has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt or the prosecutor can't get a conviction, just like any other element of a crime. Frequently the criminal is stupid enough to make admissions that help to prove this.

The point I made was that this is not only applicable to certain groups, it applies to everyone equally.

So you don't know how this could be proven? Thanks, got it.

I do know how this can be proven. I also think that you lack the capacity to understand how it can be proven. Got that? Good.

Try an easy one first.
Rabbi Wiseman finds that the message "Die Kike Die" has been spraypainted on his car. Stunned, he cannot avoid the aggressive trio who beats him with a baseball bat and various kicks. A patrol arrives as one of the trio is attempting to carve a swasika into the Rabbi's forehead. The Rabbi, though injured, still has his watch, wallet and car keys.
In this case, would you entertain the notion of a certain antipathy towards Jews?

So, aggravated assault and battery with special circumstances and possibly attempted murder wouldn't be enough charges?

yeah, let's take it easy on the guy for crying out loud. it was only a jew that he beat up and disgraced.

What an idiotic comment, and you know it. That was a pathetic response Ron.

So you can create a hypothectical, but can't answers questions about another's hypothetical. Got it.

The question was would the prior hypothetical be a hate crime and how would one go about proving it. If you know, please explain it so you can improve my capacity to understand.

pathetic?! don't you understand that that's what your comment made me think of?! "...wouldn't [that] be enough charges?" talk about subjectivity!

true enough. the standard would be a lot like the SCOTU opinion on pornography. but that also seems to mean that only the most egregious cases would meet that burden of proof. certainly in the case that AMLB illustrated, that could be a hate crime. but in other cases, it is a cloudy issue really incapable of black letter law.

but does something have to have bright line rules for it to be law?

You're delusional. How would I know what you would think about my comment?

Ron, you only see things from your perspective. How is my comment subjective? I believe it was completely objective.

mark, if an act or series of acts leads to multiple charges, the person could be tried on all of those charges. why do you have to suggest that "hey, these are pretty severe charges. they should be more than enough so we don't need to charge them with X even though we could."? that is subjective.

That's the point, why don't we treat everyone equally?

everybody IS treated equally: if ANYONE shows hatred against a specific protected class because of the fact that they are one of those specific protected classes, they get punished.

if you rob rabbi weisman simply because he seemed to be an easy mark to get a few buck from, there won't be a hate crime enhancement.

No, but life exists in the grey areas, not in the black and white. I thought it would be interesting to see how people felt about a grey situation.

Still haven't got an answer whether that hypothetical would be a hate crime.

Who knows, maybe they beat him up because he was fat or skinny! Who knows, maybe all the anti-semetic stuff came after the fact to try to point the investigation of the beating in the direction of a neo-nazi group?!

No, they aren't treated equally. What if someone hates me because I'm beautiful? Can that go under a hate crime if they beat me up?

Straw...I don't feel like going back through all the hyperbole.
Can you please post the hypothetical again, or PM it to me?

Hmmm. and if Rabbi Weismann is attacked by a "self-hating Jew", or an italian who is fed up with the "Soprano" type of Italian, aka guido, attakcs him and beats him severely screaming, no good ginny bas*ard, is that also a hate crime? A race or ethnicity attacking a member of the very same race or ethnicity with animosity toward certain perceived stereotypes that the overall group is perceived as having, and it is a form of projected self-loathing?

Question #1: Under Ron's criteria, yes. It is a hate crime. And it should be, IMO.

call your legislator and see if they will make "beautiful people" a protected class.


from the hypo, "Die Kike Die" and the attempt to carve a swastika into the rabbi's forehead seem suggest that their "real" intention of attacking rabbi weisman's wasn't for skininess.

Man comes home from work hours ahead of schedule. He tiptoes up the stairs and lo and behold, finds someone of a different race getting hot and sweaty with his wife. Never known for harboring racial animosity before, in a fit of passion, attacks and kills his wife's lover, but while doing so, shouts out with each swing of the baseball bat a racial epithet. Hate crime folks?

No.
The crime was a crime of passion.
Not "hatred" towards a certain group.

yes, a hate crime is possible. otherwise we'd have a perverse seinfeld sketch of people "converting" to judaism to escape the hate crime laws.

italian is not a protected class to the best of my knowledge.

What if he had uttered racial epithets many times prior to the crime?