I'll just drop this here seems related. What is it with Easter and Jew Hatin', srsly.

Already being refuted. That flyer about Jews needing to 'register' in Ukraine is fake

We need Inglourious Basterds to go around and "take care" of these people

You just advocated violence against a group of people.

they started it

Yeah, that's like advocating arrest of a group of people (who are criminals) or punishment of a group of people (who are bullies) or shooting (in self defense) a group of people (who are actively trying to murder you).

Amazing what that stuff you (deliberately) left out does to the meaning of your argument.

It's fine to arrest people and charge them with whatever crime they committed. Extra judicial murder/mob justice is not ok.

Techincally, the Inglorious Basterds were a state-sanctioned military unit with a mission of assassinating top Nazis in WWII.

So advocating a similar setup wouldn't be extra-judicial, per se, but it would hint at perhaps a much larger problem in those who give the orders to law enforcement. Or that we were somehow at war.

How long of a jail sentence would you think would be appropriate for this guy? Serious question.

Until Jesus comes back.

who do we jail? The jews for killing Jesus,or this guy for killing a jew?
IMO both crimes were totally wrong.
This guy is probably too inbred to know he did a crime tho.

The guy who killed people, obviously.

The joke was Jesus isn't ever coming back, so it'll serve to shatter this guys delusions. He'll be sitting in prison, expecting Jesus to come back and vindicate him. But he won't. Shame he's 73, so he's likely only got 10 years or so to rot in prison before his heart finally gives out or whatever. Still, every fanatic believes Jesus will come back in their lifetime, so hopefully his death isn't completely sudden, so he has a minute of introspection.

The exact same sentence someone would get for shooting 3 random people just to rob them. If you want to punish someone for a crime, punish them for the crime not their motivation.

That whole "motive" aspect of the criminal justice system is kind of lost on you, eh?

If you're referring to hate crimes and not liking piling on extra punishment for being a racist, then you'll have to do something about all the other categories of murder: First, second, and third degree, crimes of passion, involuntary manslaughter, depraved indifference, etc.

We put killing people on a scale all the time.

What'll really cause a shitstorm is if an all-white jury lets this guy go based on some "Semitic Panic" defense or what have you.

IANAL (and I ORAL, too), but first, second, and third degree sound much less nebulous than a feeling. Remember the old jokes about the impossibility of going to war against terror? Legislating against an emotion isn't much better.

As I've said a great many times before, state of mind can be a factor.

For instance, someone burning crosses in an African-American's yard should be charged with far more than just littering and arson.

It is, harassment is a crime because of the action of harassing someone, it's not a crime for the reason they are harassing someone.

State of mind in law seems to focus on deliberation, not motivation. The only time motivation matters is determining if it was self defense.

I would argue that it also serves to show if they would do it again or not too. ie the battered wife who finally snaps and shoots her old man vs a guy like this that was shooting people because of their religion.

Except there's no one catch-all for harassment, either. For one, it varies by state, method, and intent, and the punishments for those vary as well. It crosses over into a federal offense in the cases of interstate stalking, for example. In all of those, intent has to be determined before someone can be said to be stalking, harassing, etc. Hate crimes are a newer category, but hardly unique.

That is basically wrong. Intention is a critical part of many crimes. It's called mens rea, and it is the mental element of the crime.

Some crimes are 'strict liability' which means that it doesn't matter what your intentions are. Being too drunk to know that you are driving drunk isn't a a defense against a drunk driving charge.

Others are closely tied to the mental element. First and second degree murder are closely tied to the intention to kill - with the difference being the amount of pre-meditation.

Manslaughter and criminal negligence causing death convictions are possible even if the perpetrator had no intention that the victim would die.

In many jurisdictions these ancient distinctions have been modified. For example, sometimes an accidental killing committed in the course of a sexual assault, robbery or other intentional serious crime is automatically raised to the level of first or second degree murder because although the killing may not have been intentional, the crime which bore a significant possibility of someone dying was intentional.

Similarly, some jurisdictions make a distinction between first degree murder and aggravated first degree murder. In those cases there is additional sentencing consideration of aggravating factors such as killing of a police member or public servant, mass killings, racially hate motivated killings, murder of a pregnant woman or child, exceptional brutality, murder for hire, and so on. These aggravating factors are usually based on particularly heinous intentions or results of the crime and increase the seriousness and penalty where they are considered.

My problem with hate crime laws is that "you get extra punishment for being a racist" is uncomfortably close to "racism is illegal." While I'm certainly no fan of racism, if you can outlaw racism, then surely you can outlaw other unpopular beliefs like liberalism or atheism.

Police behavior, not belief.

I see it differently. Racism isn't illegal. Racist behavior is illegal. Refusing to hire someone because of race is actionable. Killing someone of a specific race with the specific intention of causing fear and unrest in that community is something the Court gets to take into account as well. It's not the belief that is criminalized - it is the action.

The difference I see is that refusing to hire someone isn't a crime until racism makes it one. Murder is already a crime and racism doesn't make it any worse -- because on the individual scale murder is already as bad as it gets.

Now, when you talk about terrorizing a community, that's a very good point, but I think that should be its own separate crime. Personally, I'd just call it "terrorism", but since we'd want to be able to convict white people of it too, let's go with "intimidating a community through criminal acts" or something. But I think the racial component should be removed so it could also apply to organized crime outfits (who might sow the fear and unrest you speak of in a community where the predominant race is the same as theirs) and random spree-killers (who cause fear and unrest in pretty much everyone.)

I can't disagree with any of that. Good Points. Just not the way it's currently structured.

Of course that's not how it's currently structured; that's why I was complaining about it. :)

But I want to keep arguing!

No you don't!

That's not arguing. That's just contradicting what I said.

Nuh uh!

I would argue that rape and child sexual abuse are possibly worse than murder. That baggage is pretty much with you for life, even with therapy. Not that murder is not pretty damn awful.

Ranking terrible things is hard.

Generally speaking our system accounts for things roughly as follows:
A crime is worse if it does a great deal of harm, or inflicts lasting physical or mental trauma.
A crime is worse if it was deliberate, cruel or pre-meditated, or was committed by a person in a position of trust or authority.

etc...

In general it works fairly well.

But the system doesn't adequately account for the harm done by white collar crime,and there are various other parts of the system that produce strange results. A white fraudster who robs millions of older people of their retirement money, with the result that some hundreds die earlier as a result of being unable to afford food, shelter or life-extending medical treatment just isn't going to be sentenced as harshly as a black guy who is convicted of murdering one person.

Don't they have a dollar amount on what a human life is worth, or at least a formula? I believe it's something like their remaining years before retirement, income potential, etc.?

I'd be all for treating white collar crime along the same lines. For every amount equal to the average American's life-worth embezzled, that's one count of murder.

No matter how much baggage you have to deal with, your chances of coming to grips with it and going on to lead a reasonably happy life are infinitely greater than those of a dead person. No one's ever recovered from being murdered.

Yet.

but once you are dead you don't really give a fuck about any problems either.

So if you kill three people by accident, the sentence should be the same as if you set out to murder them? The intention might be different, but the same three people end up dead.

But that's a question of intent, not motive. Accidents happen, but deliberately murdering someone is a terrible thing to do. It shouldn't become any less terrible just because you're not a racist.

But I thought that the argument was that intent isn't important. Just the end result.

Part of the justification for harsher penalties for racially motivated murders goes beyond the person who died. It factors in additional punishment for the additional intended consequence of instilling fear in other members of the segment of population which was targeted.

Here's a weird legal question:

If one hates Jews, and one tried to kill Jews, but instead killed non-Jews, does that make the deaths in some way arguably accidental? I could totally see his lawyer arguing that even if the killings were caused by hate, his client bore those killed no malice as they weren't the people he'd set out to kill.

I'm sure it wouldn't fly, but I've seen stranger defenses.

Remember we care about the motive a lot. He intended to commit a hate crime and he killed people in the process. The fact that he mistook his target has no relevance on his intentions or the crime with which he is charged.

Planning in advance to kill a specific person and accidentally shooting the wrong person in a crowd isn't a defense that I would expect to see succeed even if it was only argued to reduce the charge from 1st degree murder to 2nd degree murder on the basis that the shooter hadn't premeditated the shooting of the specific person who died.

Consider a preplanned school shooting like sandy hook. There was a premeditated intention to kill people, and people were killed. The shooter didn't care who he shot. The prosecutor doesn't have to prove that the shooter intended to kill the specific people who died in order to convict on 1st degree murder.

Except in that case, the shooter is dead.

So? What does that have to do with determining what kind of crime it was?

It means there's no determination in that case. You can't try a corpse.

You are aware that I was only using it as an example, right?

Yes, but I figured a better example would be one where there was a conviction in a court of law, to illustrate actual judgements handed down.

Quite a few of them have gone for some kind of insanity plea (I think the Aurora Colorado shooter got life in an institution), apart from the Fort Hood shooter, but that's a military court decision.

Under the principle of Transferred Intent, such a defense would be disallowed. However, the harm must be off the type intended. ( If you tried to kill a man and missed hitting an out of season deer, you would not be guilty of poaching.)

If you killed the wrong man it would still be murder. Suppose, however, that one tried to kill a persons on the basis of race, missed and killed someone of his own race instead. If one were to argue ( I don't know if any ever have) that murder and a hate crime murder are different types of crimes ( for example the second being a crime against humanity under international law and the US being signatory to international treaties vowing to make it illegal), it is certainly possible that a judge would rule that, while it was still murder it was not a hate crime. He could even simultaneously rule that charge of attempted murder vis-a-vis the intended victim was.

He is dangerous if released. Never release him.

He murdered people for no reason other than he wanted to. He should get life without parole.

Not sure how accurate scalping was

they started it.

I'm soooo sorry...

Mister Bris-Bris Bang-Bang.

...terribly, terribly sorry.

So, Ben Stein, what was that about the miracles of letting people's beliefs drive their actions?

I don't think this is what he had in mind when he predicted a 'second holocaust' for Israel.

He also advocates "no guns for crazy people," equating major metropolitan areas with podunk, North Idaho.

Or we could mock and expose these small-minded, ignorant, hateful fools each and every time one of them speaks or acts in a bigoted way. Preferably in public with humor and enthusiasm.

Apparently, this has worked in the past.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stetson_Kennedy

http://books.google.com/books?id=TV5cmLJeMswC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

That's far beyond mocking and humiliating. That requires infiltration and dissemination via mass media that nearly everyone consumes.

Also, based on a lot of what I've seen/read, people have far less shame about this kind of thing than in the past. Hell, the more you show people their opinions are at odds with reality, the more they'll cling to them.

the more you show people their opinions are at odds with reality, the more they'll cling to them.

The new Republican slogan!

Fucking hell, wrong WTF mod. Steelle, why are the negative mods listed first?

Wait, they're not. What the fuck is wrong with me, then?

Bah, it's 2am. I should just go to bed...

If you're using a greasemonkey script there's a possibility your mod values are wrong...

If you're not using a greasemonkey script it's probably all you ;)

Yeah, it's all me. I haven't gotten around to installing a new script yet.

I don't think it's all you, I think it changed recently. I'm not running any scripts and the order USED to be +1 Good, then the downmods, then the rest of the upmods. I kept meaning to complain about it, but I never got around to it.

If only he had succeeded in his run at political office this all could've been avoided.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGJut2shBdk

http://blog.scoutingmagazine.org/2014/04/14/victim-in-kansas-city-area-jewish-center-shooting-was-a-life-scout/

He was in scouts in my area, meaning I've probably meet him...

It takes a special kind of stupid to go hunting for a minority in a place where that minority gathers and kill none of said minority.

big house = retirement home. Free room and board, medical, and gets to hang out with people of like minds.

You make it sound like prison is a vacation. Perhaps in Scandinavia it is, but not in Missouri.

It definitely has more black people than Scandinavia.

I'd argue that unless he joins AB he won't survive more than a year in prison.

Don't know if he's already a card carrying member of the Aryan Brotherhood he's had his white supremacist fingers into a lot of things. Though I found it funny him yelling Heil Hitler on the video. Nothing solidifies your belief than praising a guy with one testicle, short, ugly, stupid mustache wearing, failed artist who has been proven to have a Jewish heritage, who suicides instead of going out with a bang. Yeah, thats the guy I want to be.

The obvious lesson here is if a homicidal neo-nazi with a gun asks you if you're Jewish it's a good strategy to answer 'no'.

On the other hand, I see none of the three dead victims was actually Jewish. So I guess there is no good strategy here.

Oddly enough, I wouldn't be surprised if this was a "last gasp at racist glory" on the part of the perpetrator.

Apparently he turned on a bunch of fellow racists for a lighter sentence in the mid-2000s and was branded a "race traitor." I guess he didn't want to die with that on his conscience.

Could be, but since his victims ended up being fellow white christians I guess he's still a 'race traitor'.

I wonder if he'll apologize to the families....

"Sorry, I meant to only kill jews. Easy mistake to make. Jews are sneaky."

doh, didn't see the part about him being branded a race traitor...so much for that prison retirement life.