Glimmerjim wrote:I think that legally it usually boils down to statements made by the assailants...."kick that fa**ot's ass"..etc., and there is no other discernible reason such as personal slight, previous history, etc.
But why did he make those statements? Was he simply trying to get under the skin of the person or did he have true bias? If your being an @hole, you are going to look at the person and say things based on their appearance to try and get a reaction. That will be obvious physical features and the old standby's of stupid, gay, etc.
In a court of law, the accused is supposed to get the benefit of the doubt and the government is supposed to have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt. Injecting all this emotionally charged rhetoric is completely counter to that especially when at the end of the day there is often a plausible
non-criminal explanation that the crime was random. Granted, sometimes it is crystal clear that the reason they hated the person were superficial, but so what if they were "legitimate" reasons to hate the person that they committed the crime against and why is totally random "better" and subject to less criminal penalty than a bias based crime?
Of course, the prosecutor wants a cute little white girl for a victim and not some angry, mean, shady black teen with a spotty past. Facts are facts and all this does is raises emotions which is not how just is served.
Glimmerjim wrote:Not saying I agree with it, Spinner, just trying to understand what differentiates it from a "non" Hate Crime.
I reject the premise. I don't try to understand stupid. I hope to get it out of the law, especially when it has failed and is used in such a disparate way. It is unnecessary and it is divisive, it is abused, ignored, ... It's just terrible law.
Glimmerjim wrote:Someone endangering or injuring another IS breaking the law, so wouldn't the LEO be obligated to attempt to prevent it?
So they have to stop ever speeder they see? Going 68 mph in a 65 mph speed zone is breaking the law and speeding does kill people.
A better example is that probably 10 or 15 years ago, a murder had been committed somewhere in the general area of the small town I grew up in. They had the make, model, and maybe even the license plate of the car the guy was in. A major highway runs through my little town that was a likely path of the guy. So the small town cop was sitting near my grandparents house looking for this car. Clearly, he should use some discretion on enforcement of observed criminal activity while looking for a murderer. The reason I know what he was doing is because sure enough, the murderer drove through town, this cop spotted him, followed him and then him and some other local cops from a nearby town block him off in a stretch of road with a mountain on one side and river on the other and took him into custody.
All this has to be handled in the context of the employer/employee process. Granted that is often screwed up by union or public employee laws, but it should not be handled in criminal or civil court.
If a cop is on duty and off shagging his girlfriend, clearly he is not fulfilling his "contractual obligations" but does every crime victim in the area get to file a class action suit against him? It seems even worse than trying to prove without reasonable doubt that the true motive of the crime was superficial hatred.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.