Hate crime! But how could it be? What say you WF?

The article clearly states that the attackers didn't know he was Bosnian. Ummm........yeah you might be right. The average person couldn't see that he was Bosnian, so how could this be a hate crime?
Maybe because he was ethnically Slavic? Perhaps that's the reason it could be considered a hate crime.

Regardless 70K of these Bosnians living in St. Louis? Damn, there weren't that many of them living in the towns we were located next to when I was there.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/12/0...n-community-sees-hammer-murder-as-hate-crime/

Can't say whether this is a hate crime, but if you think such crimes are only about skin color, you don't understand what a hate crime is.

Probably if they're yelling "fuck white people" while they're beating one to death, it might be a hate crime.
Just sayin'...

My sentiments exactly. What would be your objective in "confronting" a group of violent young people?
Are you going to interact with them and tell them what a cool guy you are?
They don't give a shit - you are prey, they are the predators. Stay the fuck in your car and floor it!
Then call your insurance company.

Damn - you would think living in Bosnia would instill some street smarts. Everyone I met over there
was crafty, tough and cynical.

Whoa...anti white? That's impossible! That dude must have provoked it somehow. Eye contact maybe? Showing disrespect in some manner? Impossible that urban youth
would act out in a violent fashion. Has that ever happened before?

That may be exactly why he got out of his car. Perhaps in his experience you were in more danger if you didn't, or that an out-of-car confrontation went a different way.

So we'll just make sure you guys understand the topic so you can stop bother asking questions.

Why do you think there are "Hate Crimes" really think on this topic.

Is it because black teenagers kill whities? Or is it because the KKK used to string up black teenagers?

Why did we develop the entire concept of a hate crime? Riots, perhaps during the civil rights movement? Were the whites out to protect themselves from the blacks or to protect the blacks from other whites?

How you answer the questions FORCES your answer on the rest of these kind of inane threads.

"Hate Crime" didn't just magically appear in a fucking vaccuum as some new kind of criminal activity and you fucking know it.

"Hate Crime" is LITERALLY "Political Crime" - it is LITERALLY "Thought Crime" - if "WE" (being the prosecutors) can attach some form of social BS to an existing crime we can then promote additional penalties upon the guilt so we can appear "tough on crime".

ANY fucking idiot who wants to politicize this kind of thing is selling themselves to the idea that the state can determine thought crime. You do not attempt to legitimize the concept of a "Hate Crime" from any sort of racial stance without AGREEING with the state's power of determining thought crime.

Unfortunately, very very unfortunately there is/was/and exists a time where the State finds it agreeable to a significant majority of the voting populace to define crimes in such a way.

Stop being fucking racist and maybe we can force the State to stop defining "Hate Crimes".

Or you know, keep it up and keep these kind of inane threads running because you're too fucking stupid to understand the underlying reasons.

Enjoy your limited worldview.

You're so fucking tiresome.

The reason there are hatecrimes is because there are black people.

Ergo to get rid of hate crimes we just need to...

Have my babies...but kill any of the swarthy ones

I myself have a problem with the entire concept of "hate" crimes. If someone assaults or kills someone (or choose your prefered offense), that is a crime in and of itself. The "hate" aspect goes to motive, but doesn't make the victim any more dead or injured. "Hate" crimes as they're commonly identified in the U.S. are perilously close to "thought" crimes. That's a slipperly slope I'm not comfortable with.

I suspect the origin has a lot to do with the fact that, for a long time, local law enforcement in some jurisdictions just didn't consider killing a black person to be all that worthy of prosecution. So to make sure that crimes actually got punished at all, they had to be prosecuted by somebody other than the local authorities, who might well have even been participating in them.

Another argument is that bias crimes carry an additional element of intimidating and causing fear among anyone who shares the characteristic the person was targeted for, thus affecting many more people than just the immediate victim.

Is this really anything new though? Haven't we been judging things differently based on thought for a long long time? I'm thinking specifically of judging murders where the person thought about it a long time versus little thought, in cold blood v crime of passion. One doesn't make the person any more dead or injured, but we judge them differently.

Also, terrorism, hijacking.

Valid points, I'll have to mull them over a while.

There's no such thing as hate crime. There's just crime.

Preaching to the converted on this point.

Oh, my, no. This is Murica. "We don't do those things anymore."

What motivated a crime doesn't make it more or less of a crime. You murder someone because they pissed you off or your murder them because of their skin color, they're just as dead.

This argument is as old as argument, but the distinction is that it is not just a crime against the direct victim, but against others by affiliation. It is not just murder of an individual; it is also threat against other individuals in the same group. That's a greater crime than one with a single victim, even though the other victims might be less victimized.

What about this:

Technically this is called terrorism. So again, already covered without having to create a whole new "make me feel better about myself" category like "hate" crime.

"Terrorism" has many other connotations.

So you're fine with it, so long as we change the label? Well that's a stark change from your position further up thread.

Different category. To use my own example, murder is when one person kills another person. Terrorism is when one or more people use violence against a group of other people based on the victim group being perceived as "other" in some way, and usually with the aim of getting some sort of political change. So a group (or individual associating with that group) targeting a person or persons from some other group with intimidation tactics up to and including murder is terrorism, while an individual killing another individual is murder. The perpetrator may hate their victim but adding the word "hate" in front of the word "crime" doesn't make the crime worse or the victim more dead.

Please note that I'm using murder as an example. Lots of stuff gets included under the "hate crime" rubric, from simple vandalism all the way up to mass murder. But again, all these things are already crimes. Adding "hate" in front of it doesn't alter the nature of the act itself. Whether the vandal spray paints "death to jews" or "eat at joe's" makes no material difference in the end.

Would you categorize Ted Kaczynski as a terrorist? Note, not saying he is or isn't, and definitely wouldn't say he committed hate crimes. Just trying to see whether I understand your definition correctly.

Kaczynski was not representing a group as far as I know. He espoused some political motivations but he was really just a whack-o. So no, I wouldn't count him as a terrorist.

Tim McVay, on the other hand, certainly was a terrorist.

So what "group" does a random group of teens deciding to attack someone who doesn't look like them represent?