pfife

sorry, for discussion sake, assume the hate crimes state of mind was there and provable in the scenario when the nazi spray painted the swastika. Also assume the perp was not looking at life w/o parole already. What is the issue with tacking on more hate crimes punishment in that scenario?

I don't know. I'm assuming you're conceding my points since you literally just deleted them from the quote and didn't address them.

What about the case of the nazi who spray paints a swastika on a building at EMU? Nothing you said about the hate specification being pointless because of "fully punishable" would apply to that scenario. That guy might get some community service or something for vandalism but clearly not unable to punish more. Furthermore, why should this be treated as mere vandalism when it was clearly more than that? Because in a completely different case the person was already sentenced to 800 years? Because in a completely different case it was too hard to prove? Isn't charging w/ crimes that are provable, and not overcharging, exactly what a prosecutor is supposed to do? Maybe I'm misunderstanding - are you merely against the hate crime stuff in the Buffalo case, or in all cases? Many of your arguments seem to be based on the situation where the nazi is already pretty much going to be maxed out on punishment but that's not the only situation where hate crimes legislation applies, right? Instructional value/make a statement were your words not mine. I said laws reflect what we tolerate as a culture per Durkheim. I did say it "tells" people that we as a culture do not tolerate, and many laws clearly do that. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by an argument that seems to be that laws don't instruct the citizenry on what is tolerated - they clearly do that.

Likewise, it wasn't hard to see that this nazi bitch was doing a hate crime. You already conceded that - you said the evidence of it was in spades. But in one situation you're all good with it, in the other you're not. Don't really get it. You seem to be differentiating on "hard to prove" but that's not a differentiating factor in the comparison cases.

Furthermore, do hate crimes charges always only pile onto already ridiculously long sentences? While that might be what happens here with this nazi bitch in buffalo, would that be what happens when, say, a nazi bitch gets busted at EMU spray painting a swastika on the side of a building?

as is literally everything you've said on this matter. I'm good with going with one of the most revered sociologists in history though. Obviously there's examples where law doesn't reflect what we tolerate as a culture (ie tax law) but that's not the case here - as a culture, we do not tolerate hate crimes (well until about 6 years ago). also I am interested in your answer to the hypothetical about legal planning and 1st/2nd degree murder because I'm having a really hard time understanding what differentiates these principles you're making

If someone did a bunch of stuff that was legal at the time, but that stuff ended up being all of the planning done for a murder, would you have the same opinion? Honestly you seem to be suggesting there should be no legal difference between 1st and 2nd etc degree murder as long as all of the little widgets of planning were legal when they were done. The point of our laws is not only to prosecute and punish. They also reflect what we as a culture and society will tolerate (Durkheim). Having a law against hate crimes tells people that our culture will not tolerate hate crimes and I'm 100% here for it.

If the goal is "to prosecute" then sure. But if the goal is "to prosecute accurately based on the current federal law" then no, it's not legally superfluous, as you said it's there in spades and is not an evidentiary problem. Dude wrote and published it himself.

This nazi bitch explicitly wrote that he was doing this at this particular location to terrorize as many people as possible. I guess that's no place for "the law" to get involved because it was just "state of mind" huh?

state of mind has always been an aspect of law- mens rea is a component that must be proven in any crime. Why do you see "state of mind" as an issue here? Are you against insanity defenses as well as those are clearly a "state of mind" issue as well?

Hahahahahahahaha a bipartisan abortion bill passing? Lmfao That's quality material

The police reported that he killed people after he was shot but protected by his body armor. Whether someone has seen anyone get hit wearing body armor is not relevant - the police reported it.

party of nazis and nazi groomers

I wonder why when a nazi shoots 10 people there's the need to change the topic. hit dog hollerin

lol at the implicit assumption that she owes you an answer to a question

I think its that all of these are false flags by the government to impose tyranny such as gun control

so great. I agree, hope he crushes it this season. Hilarious dude.

You seem focused on it

I'm not looking for ways to think it's ok, I'm definitely in the "not ok" camp. You're projecting again.

oh you said liberals not the biden admin at any rate that stuff they said is pretty much true too

I saw this article and it made me think of you.

Factual statements are very common from liberals

lol