Wow murder only means 12 months plus some jail time

[24788]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/28/hate.crime.bill.mother/index.html?eref=igoogle_cnn

Took the mom two years to get this bill working and approved.

The guy served less time than the mother spent time doing all of this.

Murder doesn't mean anything anymore?

 

[jasonk282]

Interesting but why was this attached to the a Defense Bill?

Yeah 12 months for killing somone hardly seems fair.

 

[No_Man]

The guy got 18 months because all he did was throw one punch. That's it. One solitary punch to the face. There was absolutely no intent to kill Kennedy. It was pure coincidence that the punch separated his brain stem. Yes, he was an asshole. Yes, he was a bigot. Yes, it was definitely assault. But they pled him down to involuntary manslaughter because that's all it was, and there was no way that a jury would ever convict him on murder charges.

 

[CunningStunts]

These "hate crime" bills are legally and logically problematic. It's trying to discern intent rather than just charging someone with a crime they commit. It doesn't matter why someone chooses to commit a crime logically, the same crime committed should get the same punishment regardless of what the judge/jury thinks the intent of the perpetrator was in that case.

 

[Friday on my mind]

No it wasn't first degree murder but it was still a murder nevertheless.And he hit him for no other reason apparently then he thought he was gay.No arguement,no dispute I just think you live some sort of lifestyle I don't approve of.How unjustifiable and stupid is that?

He got off way too easy.There is nothing to look at to say it was in anyway justified like a heat of the moment punch in an arguement.He just sucker punched someone he thought was gay.

Did he mean to kill,I'm sure he didn't but he still killed him and while I won't say he should get life or anything he should have done some years in prison not months to send a message that such unprovoked attacks will not be tolerated.

 

[jasonk282]

If a white man robs a black business is it a hate crime?

If a Black preacher talk negativly about white America is it a hate crime?

 

[D-rock]

That wasn't something like negligence or an accident. For that kind of manslaughter and the way he killed somebody he should have gotten a lot more time.

 

[CunningStunts]

If a white man robs a black business is it a hate crime?

If a Black preacher talk negativly about white America is it a hate crime?

Exactly the problem with dividing everyone up into groups and trying to discern intent in every crime for harsher punishment.

An easier and more prudent way to go is to just crack down on ALL violent crime.

 

[Friday on my mind]

If a white man robs a black business is it a hate crime?

If a Black preacher talk negativly about white America is it a hate crime?

I beleive hate crimes only comes into play when someone is physically hurt or killed.

If lets say a white guy beat a black with no evidence it was racially motivated thats not a hate crime.I don't really think it's that difficult to determine in a lot of cases.Most of the time they can present evidence of what the person was saying and doing prior to the physical attacks that are the evidence it was based on some sort of bias.

Just look at what the perpertrator said in the case here.
""As he was walking away, the guy in the back seat got out and walked over to Sean and called him a faggot and punched him in the face."

And then later.

Fifteen minutes later, the 18-year-old assailant called one of the women whom Sean had been with in the bar and left a message on her cell phone.

"You tell your faggot friend when he wakes up he owes me 500 dollars for my broken hand," the message said.


These people are not the sharpest tools in the shed lol and leave a lot of evidence of their motivations and convict themselves out of their own mouths very often.



And on your second point,speech that incites violence might be a hate crime but just decrying injustice would not be that IMO.But white groups have been convicted of telling followers they should kill blacks when their followers actually do it.Thats when the line gets crossed.

 

[jasonk282]

I beleive hate crimes only comes into play when someone is physically hurt or killed.

If lets say a white guy beat a black with no evidence it was racially motivated thats not a hate crime.I don't really think it's that difficult to determine in a lot of cases.Most of the time they can present evidence of what the person was saying and doing prior to the physical attacks that are the evidence it was based on some sort of bias.

Just look at what the perpertrator said in the case here.
""As he was walking away, the guy in the back seat got out and walked over to Sean and called him a faggot and punched him in the face."

And then later.

Fifteen minutes later, the 18-year-old assailant called one of the women whom Sean had been with in the bar and left a message on her cell phone.

"You tell your faggot friend when he wakes up he owes me 500 dollars for my broken hand," the message said.


These people are not the sharpest tools in the shed lol and leave a lot of evidence of their motivations and convict themselves out of their own mouths very often.



And on your second point,speech that incites violence might be a hate crime but just decrying injustice would not be that IMO.But white groups have been convicted of telling followers they should kill blacks when their followers actually do it.Thats when the line gets crossed.

Ok thanks cleared it up for me. But it only takes ONE person to say its a hate crime for people to start sniffing.
Seems like another way to get justice.

 

[jasonk282]

I beleive hate crimes only comes into play when someone is physically hurt or killed.

If lets say a white guy beat a black with no evidence it was racially motivated thats not a hate crime.I don't really think it's that difficult to determine in a lot of cases.Most of the time they can present evidence of what the person was saying and doing prior to the physical attacks that are the evidence it was based on some sort of bias.

Just look at what the perpertrator said in the case here.
""As he was walking away, the guy in the back seat got out and walked over to Sean and called him a faggot and punched him in the face."

And then later.

Fifteen minutes later, the 18-year-old assailant called one of the women whom Sean had been with in the bar and left a message on her cell phone.

"You tell your faggot friend when he wakes up he owes me 500 dollars for my broken hand," the message said.


These people are not the sharpest tools in the shed lol and leave a lot of evidence of their motivations and convict themselves out of their own mouths very often.



And on your second point,speech that incites violence might be a hate crime but just decrying injustice would not be that IMO.But white groups have been convicted of telling followers they should kill blacks when their followers actually do it.Thats when the line gets crossed.

Ok thanks cleared it up for me. But it only takes ONE person to say its a hate crime for people to start sniffing.

Also why is this in the Denfense bill, should this not be a bill all its self? looks like certian people wanted to pass this under the radar.

 

[No_Man]

Also why is this in the Denfense bill, should this not be a bill all its self? looks like certian people wanted to pass this under the radar.

I think it was more a slap in the face to Republicans. They wanted to make Republicans choose between voting for a defense bill they supported and voting against a hate crimes bill they didn't support. As result, they can now claim that the hate crimes bill was "bipartisan" because of the Republicans who just wanted to support defense, while at the same time claiming that the Republicans who voted against it were "soft on defense spending" during the upcoming midterms. Cheap politics.

 

[jasonk282]

I think it was more a slap in the face to Republicans. They wanted to make Republicans choose between voting for a defense bill they supported and voting against a hate crimes bill they didn't support. As result, they can now claim that the hate crimes bill was "bipartisan" because of the Republicans who just wanted to support defense, while at the same time claiming that the Republicans who voted against it were "soft on defense spending" during the upcoming midterms. Cheap politics.

I think the DemoCraps have burned to many bridges and its to late for cheap politics. People are going to vote against a high majoiryt of Dems next November. It's interesting to see what is going to happen in NJ and VA if a few weeks.

 

[Rey C.]

I think the DemoCraps have burned to many bridges and its to late for cheap politics. People are going to vote against a high majoiryt of Dems next November. It's interesting to see what is going to happen in NJ and VA if a few weeks.

Yeah, but the funny thing is, people are leaving the Republican party faster than anytime during my life. So while I believe there are many who believe that Obama and the Dems are not the answer, it hasn't shown in the number of people identifying themselves as Republicans. Just the opposite actually. The GOP has lower approval numbers than the Democrats do. More people are identifying themselves as Independents. Which IMO is :thumbsup:

Virginia tends to elect a Republican governor when there's a Democrat in the White House and a Democrat governor when there's a Republican in the White House. My guess is, McDonnell (R) will win VA, Corzine (D) will win New Jersey, and because of Sarah Palin and the extreme right Conservative Party in upstate New York, a Democrat (Owens) will win that House seat in the 23rd for the first time since before the Civil War.

But back on this topic, I'm not a lawyer or legal expert, but how do you intentionally punch someone in the face, kill them and have it be anything less than voluntary manslaughter? IMO, the hate crimes component just confuses the issue. This guy should be rotting in jail, with or without a hate crimes law.

 

[Alyssa Rose]

In my opinion, ANY CRIME IS A HATE CRIME!

 

[No_Man]

But back on this topic, I'm not a lawyer or legal expert, but how do you intentionally punch someone in the face, kill them and have it be anything less than voluntary manslaughter? IMO, the hate crimes component just confuses the issue. This guy should be rotting in jail, with or without a hate crimes law.

I'm not a lawyer either, but this is how I understand the difference between the three:

Murder: Intent to kill
Voluntary Manslaughter: Intent to kill with mitigating circumstance (i.e. provocation or diminished capacity)
Involuntary Manslaughter: Malicious intent without intent to kill OR killing during the course of an unrelated crime (i.e. a guy run runs a red light and accidentally kills a pedestrian in the crosswalk)