pfife

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

bet they know all the parts of a gun

I think there are some that still do.

Jan. 6 committee subpoenas five House Republicans, including Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/12/jan6-committee-subpoenas-mccarthy/