Choosing to act on it is a choice. Choosing to have a certain orientation is not. That's the distinguishing factor I meant to point out and apparently failed at.
Some people are of the opinion that homosexuality itself is not a choice, but that homosexuals have the choice not to engage in homosexual behavior, therefore we should still all be judged accordingly.
So they think you should all be sworn to celibacy? Nice.
Choosing to act on it is a choice. Choosing to have a certain orientation is not. That's the distinguishing factor I meant to point out and apparently failed at.
Hey, I gotcha. :P
So they think you should all be sworn to celibacy? Nice.
Well, you know... they don't want us reproducing more gay babies.
While watching the news Party A learns that protected class XYZ is holding a rally for some cause they believe in that Party A is opposed to. Party A travels to the rally with the intent to cause trouble. Upon arriving Party A discovers that it will be nearly impossible to cause harm to members of protected class XYZ so instead of causing direct harm to the members of the protected class Party A instead finds some unprotected class persons who are at the rally in support of protected class XYZ.
If Party A now commits a violent crime against these non-protected class person who are there in solidarity with the members of protected class XYZ would it be a hate crime?
My earlier question about the glasses was aimed at finding out if there is a test to see if something is a hate crime or not based upon the amount of weight of factors motivating the criminal. In the glasses case it is a 50/50 weighting. Is there a minimum weighting needed to make something a hate crime or is it that as long as one factor involves a protected class it is treated as a hate crime?
In the glasses case it is a 50/50 weighting. Is there a minimum weighting needed to make something a hate crime or is it that as long as one factor involves a protected class it is treated as a hate crime?
Who said anything about a "50/50 weighting"? What's that supposed to mean, anyhow? A person can't be charged with half a crime. Have you ever been cited for half of disregardimg a traffic control device? The "glasses-wearer" is not a protected class. It doesn't make any difference if a member of a protected class is wearing glasses. It doesn't cut the defendant's criminal liability by half. That's one of the silliest things I've ever heard you say.
Would the following count as a hate crime?
Party A hates protected class XYZ.
While watching the news Party A learns that protected class XYZ is holding a rally for some cause they believe in that Party A is opposed to. Party A travels to the rally with the intent to cause trouble. Upon arriving Party A discovers that it will be nearly impossible to cause harm to members of protected class XYZ so instead of causing direct harm to the members of the protected class Party A instead finds some unprotected class persons who are at the rally in support of protected class XYZ.
If Party A now commits a violent crime against these non-protected class person who are there in solidarity with the members of protected class XYZ would it be a hate crime?
What do you think? Use the IRAC method and analyze it as best you can. Do the sentencing guidelines apply to misdemeanors in this jurisdiction? Can the penalty for a disorderly conduct be enhanced? What harm did members of the protected class suffer?
You know, the point that I was trying to make in my last response to you was that people can really go too far in making up silly hypotheticals. What if the rally that you were talking about was held on the moon? What if Amazon WOmen from the Moon then captured the people that organized the rally? And . . . ummm . . . maybe the hater guy is still on earth, but he has a change of heart after committing a crime against the non-protected supporters and he flies up to the moon on a lightning bolt and a dream and save some non-glasses wearing members of the protected class from the amazon women but he left some of the others to their fate. Then he beamed some of the members of the protected class to Miami Beach, but one of the members beamed into the ocean and was eaten by a whale. Then the whale swam to Iceland and vomited up the person that he swallowed and then that person died of exposure. WHat criminal liability does the guy have now?
See how silly? That's how your hypothetical sounds.
Hate Crime is such a loose term. Also because I am not Jewish, Irish, Gay, Indian, Pakistani, Chinese, from the Caribbean, or Africa any of the random attacks that have happened to me cannot be classed as *hate crimes*. I can assure you that the perpetrators did have alot of hate for me, just not for the more worthy reason above (namly the geeky dyed hair emoness of me )
Hate Crime is such a loose term. Also because I am not Jewish, Irish, Gay, Indian, Pakistani, Chinese, from the Caribbean, or Africa any of the random attacks that have happened to me cannot be classed as *hate crimes*.
Not necessarily true. Wisconsin v. Mitchell was a black on white hate crime.
While watching the news Party A learns that protected class XYZ is holding a rally for some cause they believe in that Party A is opposed to. Party A travels to the rally with the intent to cause trouble. Upon arriving Party A discovers that it will be nearly impossible to cause harm to members of protected class XYZ so instead of causing direct harm to the members of the protected class Party A instead finds some unprotected class persons who are at the rally in support of protected class XYZ.
If Party A now commits a violent crime against these non-protected class person who are there in solidarity with the members of protected class XYZ would it be a hate crime?
My earlier question about the glasses was aimed at finding out if there is a test to see if something is a hate crime or not based upon the amount of weight of factors motivating the criminal. In the glasses case it is a 50/50 weighting. Is there a minimum weighting needed to make something a hate crime or is it that as long as one factor involves a protected class it is treated as a hate crime?
In my non-law-based opinion, I think they would have to prove that the person intended to cause harm to protected class XYZ when they harmed the non-protected class. Of course, defense would argue the line of "a non-protected class is non-protected".
Let's say someone attacks another person because they think they are Muslim, but they're actually Jewish or Atheist or something. I wonder what would happen in that situation.
Comments
Party A hates protected class XYZ.
While watching the news Party A learns that protected class XYZ is holding a rally for some cause they believe in that Party A is opposed to. Party A travels to the rally with the intent to cause trouble. Upon arriving Party A discovers that it will be nearly impossible to cause harm to members of protected class XYZ so instead of causing direct harm to the members of the protected class Party A instead finds some unprotected class persons who are at the rally in support of protected class XYZ.
If Party A now commits a violent crime against these non-protected class person who are there in solidarity with the members of protected class XYZ would it be a hate crime?
My earlier question about the glasses was aimed at finding out if there is a test to see if something is a hate crime or not based upon the amount of weight of factors motivating the criminal. In the glasses case it is a 50/50 weighting. Is there a minimum weighting needed to make something a hate crime or is it that as long as one factor involves a protected class it is treated as a hate crime?
You know, the point that I was trying to make in my last response to you was that people can really go too far in making up silly hypotheticals. What if the rally that you were talking about was held on the moon? What if Amazon WOmen from the Moon then captured the people that organized the rally? And . . . ummm . . . maybe the hater guy is still on earth, but he has a change of heart after committing a crime against the non-protected supporters and he flies up to the moon on a lightning bolt and a dream and save some non-glasses wearing members of the protected class from the amazon women but he left some of the others to their fate. Then he beamed some of the members of the protected class to Miami Beach, but one of the members beamed into the ocean and was eaten by a whale. Then the whale swam to Iceland and vomited up the person that he swallowed and then that person died of exposure. WHat criminal liability does the guy have now?
See how silly? That's how your hypothetical sounds.
Let's say someone attacks another person because they think they are Muslim, but they're actually Jewish or Atheist or something. I wonder what would happen in that situation.