Tennessee lesbian couple faked hate crime and destroyed own home with arson..........

Lol...

Then the same guys claim those who disagree with them are "closeted homosexuals"... because even they agree calling someone gay is an insult.



Ok, should stop here I guess... gonna go read the hundreds of articles about straights committing crimes and blaming it on someone else's hatred toward them.

 

Uh, it's an assumption you guys like to make about people who support equality. I was correcting the mistaken assumption.

- - - Updated - - -

Lol, you guys make faulty assumptions then when those assumptions are corrected you try to pretend it's some sort of "gotcha".

The mind of a bigot is truly fascinating.

 

I assumed "target a gay" meant assaulting them to steal the flag. With the burning of the stolen property being the desired outcome.

I agree that not all crimes are hate crimes despite a difference between the perp and victim being "different" color/creed/gender/sexual preference. As for the abuses that sometimes "hate crime" laws enable, those instances may be high profile, but they are hardly representative. Every law has to one degree or another "unintended" situations.

A white guy beating another white guy , is an assault. A black guy beating a white guy is assault. BUT when a black guy beats a white guy for simply being white, that is a hate crime. Hate crimes address the issue of motivation for the crime. Robbing somebody is a crime but "greed" or "desperation" aren't criminal motivations, while "hate" is.

 

I guess I was being too vague, having read Javis' example too quickly.
The example you two were discussing was obviously more specific, so I stand corrected on that one.

But....what if he stole the flag and burned it. No words exchanged.
Is that "hate" ? No one knows.

I just think "hate" is too open to interpretation. Say a white guy kills a black guy because he hates black people. No one else is around. Who decides that was his reason? Assuming he doesn't admit it, I mean.
Some will of course argue that was his reason. But how often is there proof of such an incident?
Rare I would guess.

Same results, but this time the black started the fight. Still hate?

There are people who are against the death penalty because innocent people could die.
Yet many of those people support hate crime laws, where innocent people could be imprisoned longer.
Why shouldn't there just be a punishment for a crime, period.

What if someone you are close to gets attacked by a minority. Fights back and they both get hauled off to jail.
Minority convinces everyone that your loved one did it because he was "gay/black/Muslim/etc.".
Your loved one is now looking at what, an automatic felony?
Serving much more time for something they didn't do?

This isn't a matter of fingerprints or DNA.
It's completely a matter of the interpretation by someone (judge/lawyer/etc.) who wasn't even there.

 

then I don't think it would be a hate crime, and I doubt any prosecutor would take the case as it being one.

In which case it wouldn't be a hate crime. Simply designating a particular crime that involves (as your example) different races as a hate crime is not supported by the law. There has to be clear evidence that the crime was a hate crime, not some public unsubstantiated accusations of same.

There are punishments for a crime. Committing a hate crime is a separate criminal charge.

Generally, the burden of evidence required to convict on a charge of hate crime, is more than just the word of the victim. innocent people are incarcerated all the time, so singling out this crime as somehow unjust in that instance is simply a function of an imperfect system of justice.

Without evidence to eliminate "reasonable doubt" there generally isn't a conviction for "hate" unless the defense attorney is incompetent or doesn't care.

 

I would hope so, but as I said earlier in the thread, "Polar Bear hunting".... aka "Knockout Game".... was one group of people acting out hatred toward another. That's the reason it exists.
I wish I could find the link, but people who were caught and tried were saved from the hate crime punishment because "there was no evidence of hatred".
If there is no evidence of hatred there.... where is there ?

Yes, and that's what I disagree with.
Because "hate" is not something anyone can prove. Ever.

Of course, but incarcerating innocent people longer because a judge decided there was "hate" in their motive...seems silly.

It still muddies up the judicial process with accusers, lawyers, judges, media, the feds, the DOJ if we're lucky.... all getting involved. Whether or not the conviction was successfully labeled "hate crime"... the attempts are often involved in these sort of cases.

 

So you cite an example where there wasn't enough evidence to convict on the charge of hate crime, but plenty to convict on "assault" charges.

Not true. there are tons of examples of "hate" being proven. Self professed Neo-nazis scrawling anti-Semitic messages on the side of synagogue is clear evidence of hatred.

You mean because in a court of law, a judge or jury, determines that there is enough evidence to convict on the additional crime of "hate" is silly?

The attempt to INVESTIGATE to ensure it was/wasn't and the consequent attempt to convict based on the results of those investigatory efforts is how all crimes supposed to be prosecuted.

 

Didn't realize they were mutually exclusive.

So because it's assault, it can't be hate ?!
Not the way I understood it.

Figured you would know I disqualified admissions of such... based on my earlier comment of the same.

Yes.
For all the reasons I've stated more than enough times.

 

No of course not. It seems your confusion is in the fact that there are two separate criminal charges - one for a hate crime and the second for an assault.

No admission of a hate crime, an admission of a ideology that professes hate. Based on that ideology, the act becomes more than simple vandalism.

If a KKK member lynches a black person or a new black panther kills a white police officer, it is their stated ideologies that provide a "hate motivation" for the crime outwith of any other circumstance.

But it isn't silly in the slightest. It is called DUE PROCESS.

 

No confusion at all. I was only questioning the one charge... or lack of.
Hate was the motivator.... assault was only the weapon.
Not sure how that wasn't clear already.
Not sure how it has anything to do with my original comment either.

Yes, admitting they hate black people would be an example.
That's exactly what I'm talking about.

If they can prove he's a KKK/Black Panther member, then maybe.

You're acting like these things are easy to discern.
Yet only using examples of very unusual cases.

I'd say a guy wearing a swastika tee shirt holding the bloody, beheaded skull of a Jew in his hand, probably did it out of hate....yes, I get that. But people wanted the cop in NY who choked the cigarette dealer charged with a hate crime. The Polar Bear hunters... not so much.

 

Just because some members of the public with agenda's want a hate crime charge against somebody, that doesn't have any relevance to the actual process of bringing charges.

I think we agree more than we disagree. I realize that "hate" is a difficult thing to assess. But when its obvious, its pretty damn heinous.

 

Political ideology doesn't determine who creates drama, nor who pays taxes. MOD EDIT - Rule 3

 

like specifically targetting a straight couple and victimizing them with slander. How many death threats did the straight couple get because of the accusation? How were their lives changed because someone with an agenda, wanted to play victim

 

I don't know. But then again victims of crime usually suffer to some degree or another, which is why its a crime in the first place.

OTOH, public demand for "hate crime" charges being brought are irrelevant to due process and the evidentiary threshold the law demands.

 

THis is a "on paper, anyone can be a victim of a hate crime and everyone is investigated the same".


in reality, that's not how it works.

Polar bear hunting is called random
steal a flag to burn is only a hate crime if you steal a rainbow flag, but not that big a deal when you steal a confederate flag.

target a gay, hate crime, call in death threats, listen to no evidence that it wasn't a hate crime, demand they lose their job
target a hetero, all of a sudden, gays realize they support due process.


This is why I don't support hate crime laws. Stealing a rainbow flag is a crime... punish it as such under the law they broke. Beating up a gay jerk at the bar is not automatically a hate crime.... when it's a gay jerk you assualt, it's ASSUMED by the internet that it was because he was gay, not because he was a jerk.

 

correct however the lesbians in this story fully exploited the current environment for all-things-gay and that's why they did not spray paint the word "fatty" or "ugly" on the door. They wanted to divert the investigation so they would automatically assume that someone torched their home because they engage in gay sex.

They then pointed the police to their heterosexual neighbor who was investigated, given a polygraph (which she passed) and was targeted by homosexual activists. The neighbor was dragged through the mud and the lesbians specifically targeted the woman becauses she's heterosexual.

Where are the homosexual activists with their public apology?

Where is the state in handing down a cash award payable by the homosexual activists to the neighbor whom they defamed?

We saw $135,000 awarded to 2 lesbians because they had to drive to another bakery for a cake. Since what this neighbor endured is far and away more heinous than being denied a wedding cake, should the judgment be in the $millions against the homosexual activists?

 

Obviously it does or there wouldn't be so many agitprop groups using the Alinsky model.

 

Again, you confuse the court of public opinion with the judiciary. People with political axes to grind ALWAYS take advantage of circumstances that have the merest whiff of their "pet peeve".

you are criticizing the law when you should be criticizing public partisan and media exploitation of circumstance.

 

Clearly that you are a prevaricator and you distorted the truth on post #11 when you claimed that "straight people can and have done exactly the same thing...and worse."

 

No thanks.

 

Placing blame on your heterosexual neighbor and making lies about that neighbor hating you is without a doubt a hate crime and is certainly newsworthy. I believe this story better identifies heterophobia.

- - - Updated - - -

That they blamed the neighbor and said the neighbor hated them. If it weren't for that, the couple would still have a house. They used their sexuality in an attempt to commit insurance fraud. Maybe you missed that part? That's what made this a story.

 

Which proves my point. Thanks

 

rahl also stated that homosexuality is an adult attraction to the same sex.

 

Just like their "Not that I'm a racist, but. . ."

- - - Updated - - -

You took it as an insult. It wasn't intended as an insult.

 

except public opinion isn't mutually exclusive. You get 12 liberals on a jury about stealing a rainbow flag.... "GUILTY...HATECRIME" The same 12 liberals on a jury about a black guy stealing a confederate flag..... "guilty of property damage under 100$"