LoathedVermin72 wrote:Well I mean hate crimes shouldn't be a thing in the first place so
Many crimes have aggravating circumstances that make them more serious based on the intent, in manners that are entirely uncontroversial. For example, we charge murder higher it was premeditated versus whether it was in the heat of the moment. Considering the insidious effect that crimes stemming from discriminatory animus have in intimidating people that share the same disadvantaged class as the victim, I don't think it's unreasonable at all that presence of that intent should be considered an aggravating factor in a crime. "Hate crime" is a term that may not fit that description, but it's the term that's seemed to stuck.
I would also add that federal hate crime legislation serves as an important backup if state/local law fails in delivering justice due to institutional discrimination in that state or locality. The Rodney King affair is a prime example of that.
i agree 100%. its bad enough to have a crime (assault/murde/et al) against you but for the sole reason being over something you have no control over (sexual orientation, skin color, religious beliefs) is completely stupid. ive often said i dont understand the need to be intolerant of someone for those mentioned. you spend 15 minutes with a person and those will be the least of the things you hate about them
It's also highly subjective given the broad perspectives on what constitutes "hate" and modern interpretations of social power dynamics. Can you "hate" cops?
"The fatal flaw of all revolutionaries is that they know how to tear things down but don't have a f**king clue about how to build anything."
It's also highly subjective given the broad perspectives on what constitutes "hate" and modern interpretations of social power dynamics. Can you "hate" cops?
Sure, but the context of hate is different when it's toward a class of people in power instead of a class of people that's historically oppressed.
It's also highly subjective given the broad perspectives on what constitutes "hate" and modern interpretations of social power dynamics. Can you "hate" cops?
Sure, but the context of hate is different when it's toward a class of people in power instead of a class of people that's historically oppressed.
How? Is one hate righteous and the other evil? Who chooses who gets to be called oppressed? Are some groups more oppressed and thus more allowed to hate? I get what your saying, and I actually agree. I just can't explain why.
"The fatal flaw of all revolutionaries is that they know how to tear things down but don't have a f**king clue about how to build anything."
i really believe this. not to get off subject, but if you watch the Castile dashcam it's 100% clear he did not intend to shoot/kill when he approached that car. he was nothing but professional. he should be fired for being a lousy cop but his intent was not malicious.
It's also highly subjective given the broad perspectives on what constitutes "hate" and modern interpretations of social power dynamics. Can you "hate" cops?
Sure, but the context of hate is different when it's toward a class of people in power instead of a class of people that's historically oppressed.
How? Is one hate righteous and the other evil? Who chooses who gets to be called oppressed? Are some groups more oppressed and thus more allowed to hate? I get what your saying, and I actually agree. I just can't explain why.
You think the difference of historical oppression between black people as a whole and police officers as a whole is a matter of opinion?
theplatypus wrote:He was nothing if not professional until he shot the guy to death for no good reason.
Did he shoot him out of malice? Or fear for his life?
Sure seemed like it was fear for his life in that video. If not, he's Daniel Day Lewis.
No one (in this thread) is saying Castile's death was a hate crime, so it's really confusing why you're even talking about it here. In the gun thread I even said it was a product of incompetence.
Anders wrote:I do not have a «neoliberal assessment of geopolitics», so please stop writing that I do.
theplatypus wrote:He was nothing if not professional until he shot the guy to death for no good reason.
Did he shoot him out of malice? Or fear for his life?
Sure seemed like it was fear for his life in that video. If not, he's Daniel Day Lewis.
No one (in this thread) is saying Castile's death was a hate crime, so it's really confusing why you're even talking about it here. In the gun thread I even said it was a product of incompetence.
1) I didn't know we had a Castile thread
2) I was just commenting why I think intent matters in a crime
3) Go fuck yourself
4) All of the above
1) We don't have a Castile thread, we have a gun thread.
2) Okay. Look at what he was charged with. Involuntary manslaughter and reckless use of a firearm.
3) Okay I will do that.
4) Take me back on Twitter.
Anders wrote:I do not have a «neoliberal assessment of geopolitics», so please stop writing that I do.
theplatypus wrote:1) We don't have a Castile thread, we have a gun thread.
2) Okay. Look at what he was charged with. Involuntary manslaughter and reckless use of a firearm.
3) Okay I will do that.
4) Take me back on Twitter.
1) Yah, How the fuck am I supposed to know that covers cop shootings?
2) I think a cop on duty is different than all other circumstances. I don't know how the law works and I'm guessing it doesn't differentiate. And I will repeat: That video does not show a man shooting someone out of malice. He is terrified. He was wrong and should be fired but I don't think society gains from him serving jail time, based on that video. A Jury agreed.
3) Nice
4) No
The questions are, why was the cop scared for his life and what could the victim have done differently? If there's not a good, tangible answer for the first question, and the answer to the second question is nothing, then we have a problem.
